Does intelligent design have a dualistic assumption, not a theistic one?

But has anyone else made this connection before?

The folks over at Uncommon Descent regularly attack the notion that the brain (alone) could give rise to the mind. They even have a keyword category, "mind" for it.

So creationists have made the connection before and identified the mind/brain topic as one in which they need to fight back against the evils of naturalism. I'm not sure exactly whether the DI has, so if that's what you were asking, my apologies for going off topic.

ID as vitalism

Hi Jack,

We know that Fred Hoyle was an ID proponent and presumably an atheist, so it seems possible that one can be a naturalist and IDist. Whether the DI thinks so is a different question, of course. But I don't think we should let them be the sole arbiters of what ID is.

Les Lane said: ID as vitalism

Whether or not the mind has a non-material component does seem to be a separate question from whether there is an entity that is responsible for the universe as a whole.

It's been obvious for some time that creationists think minds are magic. They regularly claim that minds can violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Plus of course they believe that they won't die when they die; that almost has to involve dualism, unless you're Ray Kurzweil, who is even nuttier.

If true, this is rather interesting. Firstly, it opens up a huge can of worms. Do ID critics now have to delve into the philosophy of mind to pry apart pro-ID arguments? Will the debate be reduced to that level? I certainly hope not, but you can’t choose where logic and arguments will take a debate, you just have to go with it.

Put that together with the fact that Meyer and his Discovery Institute peers contend that such “information” can only originate from an intelligence, and it’s beginning to look like he is assuming that all ID proponents are or should be dualists.

This is why (or at least directly related to why) cdesign proponentsists are always pressured to name a mechanism for "Design." If it turns out not to be a material entity on some level then it's hard to avoid the Dualism issue.

I'm not sure I see ID as dualistic, but I do see many of the people who sympathise with ID, the "Dissent from Darwinism" types and some of the folks in the humanities as having a dualist/vitalist view, which is what attracts them into the wider ID orbit.

What these characters never acknowledge or explain is how “information” pushes matter around at levels that are easily detectable using standard experimental techniques in physics.

Hume, I believe, had the interesting comment that if material substance can't support consciousness, we have no more reason to assert that an immaterial property can either. If we then arbitrarily claim that this immaterial property can support consciousness, then we are being no less arbitrary to claim material substance can, too.

I do not rule out the possibility that there is more to consciousness than can explained by the workings of the brain -- lacking a clear understanding of consciousness, there's no way to rule it out -- but there's no logical necessity for thinking so, and in the absence of being able to say what that "something more" might be, it's fatuous to invoke it.

Wheels said: This is why (or at least directly related to why) cdesign proponentsists are always pressured to name a mechanism for "Design." If it turns out not to be a material entity on some level then it's hard to avoid the Dualism issue.

H.H. said: The message all along has been "this cannot be explained without appealing to magic."

If there's nothing special about intelligence, then ID finds itself in the hopeless position of having to demonstrate that the actual, physical process identified by biologists -- the one that includes mutations and selection -- is not itself intelligent. After all, while ID talks about intelligence, the real proposal is that a being -- Specific or not -- is responsible. An important purpose of "Intelligence" is to rule out processes, although I don't think many proponents understand that.

don provan said: ... although I don't think many proponents understand that.

don provan said: After all, while ID talks about intelligence, the real proposal is that a being -- Specific or not -- is responsible. An important purpose of "Intelligence" is to rule out processes, although I don't think many proponents understand that.

mrg said:

H.H. said: The message all along has been "this cannot be explained without appealing to magic."

And, of course, failing to realize that appealing to magic is proclaiming they don't HAVE an explanation.

Stanton, I presume that is a rhetorical question?

mrg said: Stanton, I presume that is a rhetorical question?

This really does pose a problem that the ID community of researchers should address. How does something get from the Designer's Intellect into the world? Is there a Fabricator involved, one that we can assume is not explained by natural phenomena? Does the Designer commission the Fabricator? Or maybe it's the Designer who works on commission, like an architect? One way or another, the Designs for those bacterial flagella had to get implemented somehow, right?

I'm sure we can expect an IDist Modern Synthesis of idea (Intelligent Design) and mechanism ([Intelligent?] Fabrication), just as we saw the synthesis of Natural Selection and Genetics last century. That is, if ID really is a productive research program.

Kevin B said: Come on. You know that the ID lot can't cope with trivial things like Rhetoric. (Or Grammar and Logic, come to that.)

Wheels said: This really does pose a problem that the ID community of researchers should address. How does something get from the Designer's Intellect into the world? Is there a Fabricator involved, one that we can assume is not explained by natural phenomena? Does the Designer commission the Fabricator? Or maybe it's the Designer who works on commission, like an architect? One way or another, the Designs for those bacterial flagella had to get implemented somehow, right? I'm sure we can expect an IDist Modern Synthesis of idea (Intelligent Design) and mechanism ([Intelligent?] Fabrication), just as we saw the synthesis of Natural Selection and Genetics last century. That is, if ID really is a productive research program.

Firstly, it opens up a huge can of worms. Do ID critics now have to delve into the philosophy of mind to pry apart pro-ID arguments?

like all creationists who pretend to do science...

If you pretend at doing something long enough, likely you will actually reinvent the process yourself.

I look at things like ID (beyond the propaganda machine it actually is intended as) and things like Baraminology, and in a strangely bizarre way, it's like watching them try to reinvent the wheel, all the time yelling "IT'S NOT A WHEEL!!".

someday, they will have realized all they did, in trying to get theology to mimic science... was reinvent the scientific method.

I wonder what they will do then?

...take a look at this, for example:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

can you see how eventually, if they keep going, someday this "evolution of ideas" will end up resembling actual cosmology?

or, as I mentioned, take a look at the history of Baraminology.

It's already starting to look like a primitive form of cladistics.

Dualism is a philosophical position that states that the mind cannot be reduced to an emergent property of the brain and is a separate, non-physical entity.

Ichthyic said: I wonder what they will do then?

mrg said: Stanton, I presume that is a rhetorical question?

The actual statements of ID proponents do not imply ANY form of intelligence is necessary.

I maintain (and no ID proponent has been able to show I'm wrong) that evolution could be substituted for 'intelligent' in Intelligent Design and everything would be EXACTLY the same (at least with ID).

Of course, the reason no one has is that ID proponents are anti-evolution (despite what they say) and scientists (atheist or Christian or any for that matter) know the 'design' part of "evolution design" is redundant and adds an unnecessary layer of confusion.

harold said:

Dualism is a philosophical position that states that the mind cannot be reduced to an emergent property of the brain and is a separate, non-physical entity.

It is obviously true that ID is dualistic, but that is not what is wrong with ID. ID is wrong for the following reasons - [...] Whether it is also "dualistic" is somewhat beside the point.

If the question is whether the Discoveroids are dualists, the answer is definitely yes. They've been quite explicit about it at times. For example, see this 2008 article at their blog: Materialist Neuroscience and the 'Hard Problem' of Consciousness.

There does seem to be a faction of secular creationists -- I would estimate their proportion to be no more than 1 in 10 as a generous guess. From what I have seen of them, they tend to be "hyperskeptics" -- Forteans, the default assumption being that everything is bunk.

More often creationists are "pseudoskeptics", pointing out the "bunk" of evo science while refusing creationism a skeptical examination.

mrg said: There does seem to be a faction of secular creationists -- I would estimate their proportion to be no more than 1 in 10 as a generous guess.

Jack Scanlan said: 1 in 10!? That's quite a lot!

mrg said:

Jack Scanlan said: 1 in 10!? That's quite a lot!

I said "generous". Probably no less than 1 in 100. I run into them online sometimes. Usually they are "broad spectrum" contrarians -- also conspiracy theorists, Einstein bashers, antivaxers, HIV denialists, etc: "Whatever it is -- it must be wrong!"

Jack Scanlan said: Yes, those people do exist, unfortunately... Probably more likely to believe in the alien design of the human race than in any higher, mystical power doing it.

mrg said:

Jack Scanlan said: Yes, those people do exist, unfortunately... Probably more likely to believe in the alien design of the human race than in any higher, mystical power doing it.

Charles Fort was their patron saint. Hyperskeptics have been around a long time, though -- Hume had a discussion of them, concluding to the effect: "None of them can tell you what good it is."

It also fits the grounds for Idealism as I see it (no material world, only "Mind stuff").

William said: It also fits the grounds for Idealism as I see it (no material world, only "Mind stuff").

Solipsism is an extreme case of hyperskepticism.
Hyperskeptics are nihilistic, trying to be clever by trashing everything indiscriminately, seeking pretexts to quarrel over anything and everything.

mrg said: Solipsism is an extreme case of hyperskepticism. Hyperskeptics are nihilistic, trying to be clever by trashing everything indiscriminately, seeking pretexts to quarrel over anything and everything.

William said: It also fits the grounds for Idealism as I see it (no material world, only "Mind stuff").

Dale Husband said: I had never met anyone which that many delusions before, and it was facinating to watch her scream all over the place about everything!

That’s true, I agree with your reasons. I’m simply pondering about the motivations of individual ID proponents. While most of them are blatantly theistic, some are not. Sometimes I wonder why, hence this post.

Mike Elzinga said: So you can postulate a “hidden self” that you are discovering, or you can simply accept that there is a real, external universe. Either way you behave as though there is a real world out there.

harold said: Jack Scanlan -

That’s true, I agree with your reasons. I’m simply pondering about the motivations of individual ID proponents. While most of them are blatantly theistic, some are not. Sometimes I wonder why, hence this post.

I've pondered that many times myself. When I first heard about political creationism/ID, my conjecture was that creationists must be decent people trying to square traditional theology that had an emotional meaning to them with modern science.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: ... When I first heard about political creationism/ID, my conjecture was that creationists must be decent people trying to square traditional theology that had an emotional meaning to them with modern science.

You are in very large company. I think everyone back in the 1970s made similar assumptions and thought – with some self-confidence – that they could easily clear things up. Man were we blindsided; and it became evident very quickly when creationists would turn right around and repeat every refuted claim in every new venue.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: ... When I first heard about political creationism/ID, my conjecture was that creationists must be decent people trying to square traditional theology that had an emotional meaning to them with modern science.

You are in very large company. I think everyone back in the 1970s made similar assumptions and thought – with some self-confidence – that they could easily clear things up. Man were we blindsided; and it became evident very quickly when creationists would turn right around and repeat every refuted claim in every new venue.

Let's qualify that. One-quarter of the people in the U.S. are creationists -- of course most of them are perfectly sincere and believe what they say. The “creationists” being discussed here are the ones who regularly speak in public.

I rather think that the dualism is the primary point that the IDiots are pushing. They don't want to push it straight, of course, because it's so obviously religious.

But certainly the attacks upon "materialism" or "naturalism," plus their intention to replace current science with a theistic "science," leave no doubts to most everybody on all sides.

Actually, this would probably be their best argument for why they aren't with the other creationists, who tend to focus rather more on the Bible and other specifically religious doctrines. In some sense their official position is at some remove from the more traditional creationism. On the other hand, this dualism is also why they're starkly opposed to any actual science in principle, while other creationists tend more to be anti-science primarily in practice, and not nearly as much in principle.

OTOH, so what if their minimal position isn't precisely with YECs or even most OECs? At best, they're even more thoroughly religious in their basic claims. Which means that they're not going to advertise to their deepest divisions from other creationists, both because they'd likely lose their popular support, and because, legally, pointing out that you're more religious in their premises won't get them anywhere.

Glen Davidson

The concept of "downward causation" in complex-systems theory neatly solves the dualism problem. An emergent phenomenon in a complex system is non-material, and can be considered as an actor in its own right. Yet it does not---cannot---exist apart from its constituent material parts. The neurons of the brain, e.g., cause the mind to function in an upward direction, but the (non-material) organizational pattern of these neurons forms an emergent phenomenon that can cause changes in the physical neurons in a downward direction.

This explains how a non-material entity ("mind") can act on a material entity ("brain"). The actions are carried out by material neurons---yet it is the non-material organization of these neurons that produces the action.

S,Y. Auyang, in Foundation of the Theories of Complex Systems (1999), notes that downward causation is often ascribed to mystical entities; yet there is nothing mystical about the concept at all.

MMmmmm dualism .....drool.....

They'll never buy it.

Dualism is just another Darwinian conspiracy.

It's all to do with drugs and sex.

http://lampofdiogenes.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/creationists-gone-wild-sex-slavery-and-cocaine-cult-leads-fight-against-darwin/

Olorin said: The concept of "downward causation" in complex-systems theory neatly solves the dualism problem. An emergent phenomenon in a complex system is non-material, and can be considered as an actor in its own right.

@Olorin, Eric: Explanatory pluralism for the win!

Bilbo said: Hi Jack, We know that Fred Hoyle was an ID proponent and presumably an atheist, so it seems possible that one can be a naturalist and IDist. Whether the DI thinks so is a different question, of course. But I don't think we should let them be the sole arbiters of what ID is.

k.e. said: MMmmmm dualism .....drool..... They'll never buy it. Dualism is just another Darwinian conspiracy. It's all to do with drugs and sex. http://lampofdiogenes.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/creationists-gone-wild-sex-slavery-and-cocaine-cult-leads-fight-against-darwin/

Mike Elzinga said: Not only do evolution and the second law of thermodynamics NOT conflict; evolution REQUIRES the second law.

william e emba said: It's a complete non-starter from Boltzmann himself.

mrg said: What makes it even more blatantly stupid is the observation that if the SLOT rules out evolution, then ...

william e emba said: My point was that there is something deeper in stupidity going on, something I rarely see mentioned: the very idea of entropy as disorder came from evolution.

If I understand correctly the tenets of ID, an intelligent designer exhibits too much complex specified information to have originated by natural causes. If my logic is correct, that leads either to an infinite regression of designers or deism, and that is one of the reasons I think it's fair to say that ID is creationism.

I also find intriguing the fact that ID proponents never include in their explanatory filters something that should be pretty obvious: to discard a human/animal or any other kind of known designer as a step previous to jump to the inference of an unknown "god or aliens" designer. And I think there may be a good reason to left this step out of the filter: that would force them to admit that the origin and the content of their holy book is best explained as human in origin.

There never could have been a contradiction, by pure logic.

Slightly OT
Where is (former?) DI Fellow Jonathan Wells? Who is in / out at the DI in 2011? What is the DI doing lately? Do you see any trend?

william e emba said: As a matter of historical record, Boltzmann's motivation in developing the atomistic "disorder" explanation of the 2nd law came from Darwin and evolution.

My point was that there is something deeper in stupidity going on, something I rarely see mentioned: the very idea of entropy as disorder came from evolution.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Slightly OT Where is (former?) DI Fellow Jonathan Wells? Who is in / out at the DI in 2011? What is the DI doing lately? Do you see any trend?

Mike Elzinga said: Also, I think you missed mrg’s subtle dig at the ID/creationists. He was referring to the ID/creationist claim that the second law of thermodynamics cannot explain the evolution of computers on the surface of the planet (as observed by space travelers visiting the Earth in successive periods in its history).

mrg said: "Subtle"? Gonna tell me that Moe, Larry, and Curley are "subtle"?

Mike Elzinga said: And the association of entropy with disorder has generally been metaphorical [...]

My point was that there is something deeper in stupidity going on, something I rarely see mentioned: the very idea of entropy as disorder came from evolution.

I’m not sure what you mean here. [...]

Also, I think you missed mrg’s subtle dig at the ID/creationists. [...]

william e emba said: To wit, the creationists have successfully framed the debate, which we intelligent, educated people have over the years joined in and refuted as stated. I think we should point out how delusional the alleged debate is. Mocking them on the technical grounds that they are pathetic is one thing, but it is still a concession that the debate exists.

Mike Elzinga said:

William said: It also fits the grounds for Idealism as I see it (no material world, only "Mind stuff").

You appear to be an intelligent and curious student. Idealism and Realism actually swapped approximate meanings over the centuries. However, the “mindstuff” that you refer to probably fits more with solipsism which says that only the mind - “your mind” for example -exists. It’s an interesting exercise to see if this fits with ID/creationist “philosophy.” Solipsism starts unraveling the minute “you” begin to ask where new knowledge comes from. For example, how did your mind create a responder to your query that pointed you to something you didn’t know? Was that responder a hidden part of your mind? By asking questions and exploring for answers, are you therefore exploring your “hidden self?” Why is your hidden self hidden? If you take a figment of your imagination, called a hammer, and bring it down hard on the figment of your imagination called your thumb, would you be inclined to do it again? Where do the laws of the universe (actually your mind) come from? Now ask if these are the kinds of questions asked by ID/creationists. In fact, they are not. ID/creationists assert a supernatural being and a specific dogma that tells them the characteristics and behaviors of this being. They then go around asserting laws of nature that are consistent with their idea of this Supreme Being. However, those “laws of physics” and other “natural laws” they propose do not fit what science has discovered. So even if “science” is what you discover about “yourself” in a solipsistic “universe” (your mind), ID/creationists are not following what a solipsist would ultimately be doing within his/her own “mind.” Solipsists ultimately have to start behaving as though their “universe” is real (what if shooting yourself in the head really does correspond to a real world; should you take the chance?). So you can postulate a “hidden self” that you are discovering, or you can simply accept that there is a real, external universe. Either way you behave as though there is a real world out there. ID/creationists don’t do that.

The most fun I know of with the concept of solipsism is in Iain M Banks Against A Dark Background. There's a roving band of 47 Solipsists, 46 of whom call themselves "God", since they are responsible for all of existence. The 47th is an atheist.

I'm puzzled by this post and thread since it's news to me that vitalism implies dualism. Historically, a lot of vitalists were monists. Classical dualism, the philosophy of Descartes, for example, is a lot more congenial to natural theology than the outlook of guys like Diderot who broke with the mechanistic outlook by suggesting that matter might contain the power to act by itself, that it might even think. Mechanistic materialism underlies Paley's arguments since if nature is a machine, i.e. a complex tool, it logically implies some agent that created the tool and makes use of it. What historically challenged this world view was monistic vitalism that asserted the continuity of matter and mind. A cat is not a clock.

When there is a really splendid example of stupidity on tap, the ID movement, for example, there's always a temptation to associate it with other ideas one doesn't like as if the full resolution of the mind/body problem were as simple as refuting Creationism. It isn't, and there are a heck of a lot more possible explanations floating around that the Casper-the-Friendly-Ghost model or some sort of hand-waving reductionism. Cheap rhetorical victories are corrupting, are they not?

A naive question. The dualism found at places like Uncommon Descent seems to argue that while the Brain is in our heads, the Mind is actually Somewhere Else. If so, suppose you go walking along and happen to collide with a low-hanging tree limb. You get clunked on the head and you are knocked out.

So does your Mind go on thinking and making moral judgements, and being outraged that people aren't dualists and that they don't agree with Denyse O'Leary ... while your Brain is still knocked out? Or is there some cosmic communication that knocks out your Mind for a while too?

I guess this shows how little I understand about such things.

I think you have hit the nail on the head! I have seen the same connection you have seen. I wrote an MA thesis on the topic of nonreductive physicalism and by the time I finished it I was convinced that the mind/body dualism (aka natural/supernatural, aka materialist/non-materialist) issue is driving the ID vision. I am also convinced that dualistic philosophy is not limited to religious views such as the ones driving the ID vision. I think a dualistic philosophy is problematic... even a mildly dualistic one... and is ultimately inadequate as a tool of explanation. I also think that it is, indeed, the basement, the foundation, for the Intelligent Design school. Maybe Jaegwon Kim is offering some light on the subject...

Mike Elzinga said:

If true, this is rather interesting. It underlies Dembski’s sampling assumptions and “complex specified information,” Abel’s “spontaneous molecular chaos,”, Behe’s “irreducible complexity,”, Sanford’s “genetic entropy,” and all the babble about information pushing matter around into all these “impossible arrangements” that constitute life.

What is this babble about "information pushing matter around"? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Jim Harrison said: I'm puzzled by this post and thread since it's news to me that vitalism implies dualism. Historically, a lot of vitalists were monists.

Intelligent Designer the delusional mental midget observed:

Mike Elzinga said:

If true, this is rather interesting. It underlies Dembski’s sampling assumptions and “complex specified information,” Abel’s “spontaneous molecular chaos,”, Behe’s “irreducible complexity,”, Sanford’s “genetic entropy,” and all the babble about information pushing matter around into all these “impossible arrangements” that constitute life.

What is this babble about "information pushing matter around"? I have no idea what you are talking about.

william e emba said: The most fun I know of with the concept of solipsism is in Iain M Banks Against A Dark Background. There's a roving band of 47 Solipsists, 46 of whom call themselves "God", since they are responsible for all of existence. The 47th is an atheist.

You are in very large company. I think everyone back in the 1970s made similar assumptions and thought – with some self-confidence – that they could easily clear things up. Man were we blindsided; and it became evident very quickly when creationists would turn right around and repeat every refuted claim in every new venue.

Intelligent Designer the delusional mental midget observed:

Intelligent Designer said:

Intelligent Designer the delusional mental midget observed:

John, why are you insulting me? Have I ever said anything unkind to you? I am just asking a sincere question. I don't know what Mike is talking about and I would like a pointer.

Intelligent Designer said:

Intelligent Designer the delusional mental midget observed:

John, why are you insulting me? Have I ever said anything unkind to you? I am just asking a sincere question. I don't know what Mike is talking about and I would like a pointer.

William said: Actually I'm not a student I'm barely thirteen, I understand what you mean, I know solipsism is not a possibility but idealism would still fit with creationist theory since god and everyone else could still exist.

william e emba said: I did not miss it. It's well-known and all that.

I find that impossible to believe. Were you being sincere when you deliberately avoided defining what you meant by "information" in the previous information?

Their tactics for spreading this stuff are socio/political; and they are driven by sectarian ideology.

Intelligent Designer said: I was being lazy.

Mike Elzinga said: But the theme that runs through all major ID/creationist writings makes it pretty clear that “information” and “intelligence” assembles matter into the forms associated with living organisms.

Look. If you're going to ask disingenuous questions, could you at least put SOME effort into it? It would be the least courtesy.

You can't really think we're that dumb, can you?

Mike, as far as I can tell, you are misrepresenting ID. Who has said that?

Flint said: It's a neat scam, empty doubletalk, unless you can answer those questions.

Intelligent Designer said: I was being lazy. But I would like to know who said that "information pushes matter around". That doesn't make sense to me. Mike Elzinga, can you provide me with a reference?

Mike Elzinga said: There will be no further response to you by me on this thread.

Mike,

I wouldn't try to defend "the solution to the distant startlight problem". I am not a Christian nor a YEC.

Why can't you tell me who said that "information pushes matter around". As far as I can tell you are the only one saying that.

Intelligent Designer proclaimed his innocence by his rather lame declaration of breathtaking inanity:

Their tactics for spreading this stuff are socio/political; and they are driven by sectarian ideology.

That would be stereotyping. I have now religious affiliation. Nor do I have a political agenda that relates to intelligent design.

Intelligent Designer the babbling IDiot whined: Mike, I wouldn't try to defend "the solution to the distant startlight problem". I am not a Christian nor a YEC. Why can't you tell me who said that "information pushes matter around". As far as I can tell you are the only one saying that.

John Kwok said: If your reply to Mike is indeed valid and not merely an act of chicanery, then why do you call yourself "Intelligent Designer"? Why haven't you addressed my observation that Intelligent Design advocates love to abuse published scientific data just to advance their own risible, quite mendacious, socio-political and relgiously-inspired pseudoscientific nonsensical agenda?

Intelligent Designer said:

John Kwok said: If your reply to Mike is indeed valid and not merely an act of chicanery, then why do you call yourself "Intelligent Designer"? Why haven't you addressed my observation that Intelligent Design advocates love to abuse published scientific data just to advance their own risible, quite mendacious, socio-political and relgiously-inspired pseudoscientific nonsensical agenda?

John, most people here are probably aware that I am not a Christian and I have explained why in my blog. I was once a Christian but that was almost 20 years ago. Why would you assume I am lying about that?

I am a software engineer (thus an intelligent designer). I don't consider intelligent design to be in conflict with evolution. It is in confict with the idea that randon mutation + natural selection can drive evolution.

John Kwok said:

Intelligent Designer the babbling IDiot whined: Mike, I wouldn't try to defend "the solution to the distant startlight problem". I am not a Christian nor a YEC. Why can't you tell me who said that "information pushes matter around". As far as I can tell you are the only one saying that.

How come you haven't addressed my initial reply to your risible plea for tolerance and decency (which is ironic since you are demonstrating that you are neither tolerant nor decent IMHO)?

Every ID pusher who claims to have no religious or political motivation for denying reality in favor of magic is lying. EVERY. ONE. OF. THEM.

At least the yahoos who admit that they reject real science because of Jesus are honest about the root of their stupidity. It's the ones who try to pretend that is actually scientifically valid and nothing to do with a deity who are by far the most contemptable.

Need I remind you how you got banned at Pharyngula for lying about how Prof. P.Z. Myers was allegedly writing a rebuttal to your alleged program?

Intelligent Designer said: I am a software engineer (thus an intelligent designer).

I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere on PT recently, but I had a question about the evolution of consciousness. I read somewhere some years ago about how the mind might have evolved.

In a social species, such as dogs or apes, one survival strategy is to be able to anticipate what the other individuals in the social group are going to do. The better you can anticipate a certain response, the more likely you are going to be able to induce such a response. "How can I make that other wolf give up the meat he's eating so that I can eat it?" Over time, the individual who is better able to understand the other individuals is going to succeed (especially if one isn't the "alpha" dog). To do so, one has to "model" the other individual; to "think" like the other.

Then, there is that serendipitous evolutionary moment where brain structures that evolved to figure out (to "model") the motives of the "other" are turned inward to consider the motives of the "self". And viola, once you start thinking about what you're thinking about, in just a couple of iterations you have essentially achieved "consciousness". As others here have noted, you have emergent phenomena based solely on aggregated physicality, with plausible utility of function (and hence evolvability) at each stage of development.

(There's also the requirement for language, a physical means to make language, and a set of symbols to allow one to think about what you're thinking about. But that ability could probably co-evolve along with the mind.)

Does this make sense? Anyone know if this still represents a plausible hypothesis? Are there more plausible hypotheses out there about the evolution of the mind? (Pointers to non-technical discussions would be sufficient/appreciated.)

Coming from a computer science (and SciFi) background, the notion of "models of intelligence" becoming self aware is quite intriguing.

Thanks.

In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I'm not an "Intelligent Designer", but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was "designed". Most large software systems "evolved" (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

Count me as another computer programmer who doesn't "buy" ID and sees that the Modern Synthesis is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that we've got.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

Scott F said: Coming from a computer science (and SciFi) background, the notion of "models of intelligence" becoming self aware is quite intriguing. Thanks.

I can't help it if PZ can't tell the difference between a joke and a lie.

it's not PZ that has that problem, actually.

it's you, Stimpy.

fnxtr said:

Intelligent Designer said: I am a software engineer (thus an intelligent designer).

Well, colour me shocked. To a man with an axe, everything looks like a tree. The 19th century's "pocket watch in a field" has become the 21st's "computer code", and "elan vital" is now "information". SSDC.

Scott F said: In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I'm not an "Intelligent Designer", but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was "designed". Most large software systems "evolved" (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

Mike Elzinga said: ...the properties of the individual atoms or molecules that make them up, that set of properties is enormous; and they vary enormously with temperature.

IBelieve, tell us again how appealing to your own abysmally invincible ignorance is supposed to impress everyone.

Last I checked, your own disbelief does not impress or convince anyone of anything, other than the fact that you're proud of being a colossal Idiot For Jesus.

IBelieveInGod said: ...intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug.

IBelieveInGod said: The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

IBelieveInGod said:

Scott F said: In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I'm not an "Intelligent Designer", but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was "designed". Most large software systems "evolved" (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

So, are you saying that most large software systems evolved without the intelligence of programmers? Are you saying that incredibly complex software like Photoshop gained new features on it's own without the designing and coding by software engineers? Those new features just evolved by themselves without any thought or plan by programmers? The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

Mike Elzinga,

I'm interested in your statement about entropy (much earlier in this thread), as it very much *does* depend on spatial arrangements of (e.g.) spins, etc. (at least if spin-spin interactions, or spin-field-spin interactions are allowed (that is, if -- taking a Hamiltonian view -- there is a SiSj term, and not just SiB term).

I probably misread you as poo-pooing the spatial distribution dependence in favor of an energy-levels-only dependence.

Dale Husband said: Please explain the relationship between computer programming and living things, including human beings. Last time I checked, we were nothing like computers at all.

Intelligent Designer said:

John Kwok said: If your reply to Mike is indeed valid and not merely an act of chicanery, then why do you call yourself "Intelligent Designer"? Why haven't you addressed my observation that Intelligent Design advocates love to abuse published scientific data just to advance their own risible, quite mendacious, socio-political and relgiously-inspired pseudoscientific nonsensical agenda?

John, most people here are probably aware that I am not a Christian and I have explained why in my blog. I was once a Christian but that was almost 20 years ago. Why would you assume I am lying about that? I am a software engineer (thus an intelligent designer). I don't consider intelligent design to be in conflict with evolution. It is in confict with the idea that randon mutation + natural selection can drive evolution.

Intelligent Designer the babbling IDiot whined and moaned:

John Kwok said: If your reply to Mike is indeed valid and not merely an act of chicanery, then why do you call yourself "Intelligent Designer"? Why haven't you addressed my observation that Intelligent Design advocates love to abuse published scientific data just to advance their own risible, quite mendacious, socio-political and relgiously-inspired pseudoscientific nonsensical agenda?

John, most people here are probably aware that I am not a Christian and I have explained why in my blog. I was once a Christian but that was almost 20 years ago. Why would you assume I am lying about that? I am a software engineer (thus an intelligent designer). I don't consider intelligent design to be in conflict with evolution. It is in confict with the idea that randon mutation + natural selection can drive evolution.

IBelieveInGod said:

Scott F said: In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I'm not an "Intelligent Designer", but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was "designed". Most large software systems "evolved" (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

So, are you saying that most large software systems evolved without the intelligence of programmers? Are you saying that incredibly complex software like Photoshop gained new features on it's own without the designing and coding by software engineers? Those new features just evolved by themselves without any thought or plan by programmers? The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

Glen Davidson said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Scott F said: In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I'm not an "Intelligent Designer", but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was "designed". Most large software systems "evolved" (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

So, are you saying that most large software systems evolved without the intelligence of programmers? Are you saying that incredibly complex software like Photoshop gained new features on it's own without the designing and coding by software engineers? Those new features just evolved by themselves without any thought or plan by programmers? The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

Actually, obtuse one, the point was that software evolves and leaves a characteristic legacy which shows how it evolved via intelligent manipulation. Were the genetic code to contain that sort of legacy, naturally we would conclude that it was designed. Because DNA is far more constrained by heredity and unintelligent processes of mutation and natural selection, this characteristic legacy leaves quite a different "signature." DNA information is not like what one would expect from programmers because the latter think, and can come up with novel solutions unlike what is typical in unintelligent evolutionary processes. For example, horizontal transfers in software are rampant--and often illegal--while in vertebrate evolution such horizontal transfers are rare, as expected from the processes of imperfect reproduction. This is not much for you, either, unthinking IBIG. It's mostly for lurkers, etc., who will recognize the analogy of intelligent evolution and unintelligent, and the importance of the marks each leave behind, the latter having some similarities, and important, highly characteristic, differences. Glen Davidson

Intelligent Designer said: I am a software engineer (thus an intelligent designer). I don't consider intelligent design to be in conflict with evolution.

Prometheus68 said:

IBelieveInGod said: The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

At least software developers actually work on the code when bugs arise in their programs. When will our "intelligent designer" get to debugging (viz., correcting the defects in) the human code (i.e., trisomies, dementia, Huntington's, etc...)?

For IBIG: Catching evolution in the act

Dale Husband said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Scott F said: In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I'm not an "Intelligent Designer", but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was "designed". Most large software systems "evolved" (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

So, are you saying that most large software systems evolved without the intelligence of programmers? Are you saying that incredibly complex software like Photoshop gained new features on it's own without the designing and coding by software engineers? Those new features just evolved by themselves without any thought or plan by programmers? The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

Please explain the relationship between computer programming and living things, including human beings. Last time I checked, we were nothing like computers at all.

Glen Davidson said: "... the importance of which even biological unsophisticates should be able to recognize--the vastly different rates of the two highly different processes."

much co said: Mike Elzinga, I'm interested in your statement about entropy (much earlier in this thread), as it very much *does* depend on spatial arrangements of (e.g.) spins, etc. (at least if spin-spin interactions, or spin-field-spin interactions are allowed (that is, if -- taking a Hamiltonian view -- there is a SiSj term, and not just SiB term). I probably misread you as poo-pooing the spatial distribution dependence in favor of an energy-levels-only dependence.

Rolf Aalberg said: For IBIG: Catching evolution in the act

IBelieveInGod said: So, are you saying that most large software systems evolved without the intelligence of programmers? Are you saying that incredibly complex software like Photoshop gained new features on it's own without the designing and coding by software engineers? Those new features just evolved by themselves without any thought or plan by programmers? The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

But it's still a plant! It didn't grow legs and a nervous system!!111!!one!!

I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development.

Henry J said: Now if somebody would just remind him that he does have the right to remain silent...

but the overriding question is, grad students, does Evo have a quasistic assumption (just one?), or is it a pshawistic or mooshistic, or maybe even hellenistic-hellistic, assumption?

wesley kime said: but the overriding question is, grad students, does Evo have a quasistic assumption (just one?), or is it a pshawistic or mooshistic, or maybe even hellenistic-hellistic, assumption?

Evolution theory has the same basic assumption as any other accepted theory: it is assumed that were the theory wrong in its basic principles, contrary evidence would be plentiful already, given the huge amount of research that has been done, and the number of areas in which contrary evidence would be likely if the hypotheses were wrong.

Okay, to certain individuals with axes... I didn't mean to tar all programmers.

SWMBO likes to knit, but would never insist that DNA is a knitting pattern.

I'm a composer, but you'll never see me beaking off about how DNA is a symphonic score.

Both of these look like closer analogies than "computer code", though.

fnxtr said: I'm a composer, but you'll never see me beaking off about how DNA is a symphonic score.

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

SWT said:

fnxtr said: I'm a composer, but you'll never see me beaking off about how DNA is a symphonic score.

Closer to aleatoric music, based on what actually goes on? Maybe the next scam will be "Biological Harmonics" or something ... after all, the Bible says

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

IBelieveInGod said:

Scott F said: In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I'm not an "Intelligent Designer", but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was "designed". Most large software systems "evolved" (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

So, are you saying that most large software systems evolved without the intelligence of programmers? Are you saying that incredibly complex software like Photoshop gained new features on it's own without the designing and coding by software engineers? Those new features just evolved by themselves without any thought or plan by programmers? The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

Mike Elzinga said: I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development. There is no indication whatsoever in his comments that he gets what is being illustrated by the example of software evolution. The inability to grasp analogies and metaphors is what is behind the literal readings of authoritarian writings. Almost all cognitive development specialists would place IBIG’s level somewhere below that of a pre-teen; and more likely somewhere in early elementary school.

Oh, how tiresome.

Intelligent Designer said:

Mike Elzinga said: I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development. There is no indication whatsoever in his comments that he gets what is being illustrated by the example of software evolution. The inability to grasp analogies and metaphors is what is behind the literal readings of authoritarian writings. Almost all cognitive development specialists would place IBIG’s level somewhere below that of a pre-teen; and more likely somewhere in early elementary school.

This is a perfect example of an ad hominem abusive attack. I think I'll use it on my next blog post.

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, are you saying that most large software systems evolved without the intelligence of programmers? Are you saying that incredibly complex software like Photoshop gained new features on it's own without the designing and coding by software engineers? Those new features just evolved by themselves without any thought or plan by programmers? The problem with your argument is that intelligent designers programmed in every new feature, debugged the software to remove every bug. Nothing happened by random chance, everything was done with a purpose, everything new feature was planned, designed, coded, and finally debugged.

I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development. There is no indication whatsoever in his comments that he gets what is being illustrated by the example of software evolution. The inability to grasp analogies and metaphors is what is behind the literal readings of authoritarian writings. Almost all cognitive development specialists would place IBIG’s level somewhere below that of a pre-teen; and more likely somewhere in early elementary school. Attempting to explain the illustration of software development to him would be like attempting to teach general relativity to a 5 year old. There is nothing one can work with because it hasn’t developed yet. And in the case of such extreme fundamentalist beliefs; the reason that arrested development continues is precisely because of the sectarian dogma “etched into the brain.” We can even talk in front of him about this and he will not understand. It's like a little child playing as mommy talks with mommy's friend about the issues of raising children.

Scott F said: In contrast to the previous commenter, as a software engineer, I’m not an “Intelligent Designer”, but a firm believer in Evolution. All you have to do is look at most large software systems. Very little of it was “designed”. Most large software systems “evolved” (in some sense) from less complex software systems.

Intelligent Designer said:

Mike Elzinga said: I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development. There is no indication whatsoever in his comments that he gets what is being illustrated by the example of software evolution. The inability to grasp analogies and metaphors is what is behind the literal readings of authoritarian writings. Almost all cognitive development specialists would place IBIG’s level somewhere below that of a pre-teen; and more likely somewhere in early elementary school.

This is a perfect example of an ad hominem abusive attack. I think I'll use it on my next blog post.

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

I've often wished we could get IBIG's interpretation of a few of Aesop's fables. Consider the fable where a convention of mice agree the cat should wear a bell, but no mouse can be found willing to do it. Would he start worshiping talking mice, or would he dismiss that fable on the grounds that mice do not talk?

IBIG sees his fables as either absolutely true natural history, or absolutely false meaningless fiction. The POINT a story was written to impart, now, that remains forever invisible.

Scott F said: Apparently you have never worked on a large software program.

Intelligent Designer said:

Mike Elzinga said: I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development. There is no indication whatsoever in his comments that he gets what is being illustrated by the example of software evolution. The inability to grasp analogies and metaphors is what is behind the literal readings of authoritarian writings. Almost all cognitive development specialists would place IBIG’s level somewhere below that of a pre-teen; and more likely somewhere in early elementary school.

This is a perfect example of an ad hominem abusive attack. I think I'll use it on my next blog post.

Prometheus68 said: When will our "intelligent designer" get to debugging (viz., correcting the defects in) the human code (i.e., trisomies, dementia, Huntington's, etc...)?

I would suggest that you have a problem with comprehension, it is silly to think that any software was not designed, or that any new feature was not designed at some point in time. Any new feature must of been coded for at some point, therefore it was designed, and to state the opposite would be a lie.

mrg said: Oh, and BTW, it is a simple statement of fact that Biggie is dysfunctional. He has spent HUNDREDS of hours here, spouting off anything that comes into his head whether it makes any sense or not while sitting there with his fingers in his ears. His behavior is obsessive.

Perhaps our intelligent designer isn’t all powerful and can’t fix all instances of these problems one by one and has delegated that job to recombination and natural selection.

Scott F said: Does this sound like a fairy tale to you?

Flint said: Or maybe the Designer only designed the process, knowing that not all of the results would be up to snuff?

IBelieveInGod said: I would suggest that you have a problem with comprehension, it is silly to think that any software was not designed, or that any new feature was not designed at some point in time. Any new feature must of been coded for at some point, therefore it was designed, and to state the opposite would be a lie. True there are times that code can be used in completely different software programs, but that does not change the fact that the code was designed at some point in time by an intelligent designer:) Calling me names and insulting my intelligence does nothing for your argument, because you are just plain wrong.

Intelligent Designer said: This is a perfect example of an ad hominem abusive attack. I think I'll use it on my next blog post.

IBIG is dead wrong about one thing. Those programmers did not remove every bug (wink). But everything else IBIG said is right on.

Intelligent Designer said:

Prometheus68 said: When will our "intelligent designer" get to debugging (viz., correcting the defects in) the human code (i.e., trisomies, dementia, Huntington's, etc...)?

These defects are the results of entropy. Perhaps our intelligent designer isn't all powerful and can't fix all instances of these problems one by one and has delegated that job to recombination and natural selection.

IBelieveInGod said: I would suggest that you have a problem with comprehension, it is silly to think that any software was not designed, or that any new feature was not designed at some point in time. Any new feature must of been coded for at some point, therefore it was designed, and to state the opposite would be a lie.

Stanton said: Can you devise a way to test for this wild armchair guessing "hypothesis" of yours?

Intelligent Designer said:

Prometheus68 said: When will our "intelligent designer" get to debugging (viz., correcting the defects in) the human code (i.e., trisomies, dementia, Huntington's, etc...)?

These defects are the results of entropy. Perhaps our intelligent designer isn't all powerful and can't fix all instances of these problems one by one and has delegated that job to recombination and natural selection.

Mike,

Maybe I should take a class from you. If I wanted to learn how to answer that question what class would I take?

By the way, which intelligent design proponent said that "information pushes matter around". Please give me a reference.

Intelligent Designer said: Mike, Maybe I should take a class from you. If I wanted to learn how to answer that question what class would I take? By the way, which intelligent design proponent said that "information pushes matter around". Please give me a reference.

Mike,

I read those papers and I didn't see anything about information pushing matter around.

Intelligent Designer said: Mike, I read those papers and I didn't see anything about information pushing matter around.

Mike Elzinga said:

Intelligent Designer said: Mike, I read those papers and I didn't see anything about information pushing matter around.

Keep reading.

Intelligent Designer said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Intelligent Designer said: Mike, I read those papers and I didn't see anything about information pushing matter around.

Keep reading.

Keep lying.

Mike Elzinga said:

Intelligent Designer said: Mike, I read those papers and I didn't see anything about information pushing matter around.

Keep reading.

Mike Elzinga said:

much co said: Mike Elzinga, I'm interested in your statement about entropy (much earlier in this thread), as it very much *does* depend on spatial arrangements of (e.g.) spins, etc. (at least if spin-spin interactions, or spin-field-spin interactions are allowed (that is, if -- taking a Hamiltonian view -- there is a SiSj term, and not just SiB term). I probably misread you as poo-pooing the spatial distribution dependence in favor of an energy-levels-only dependence.

You have a system comprised of ten identical atoms, each with a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. (1) What is the entropy when every atom is in its ground state? (2) What is the entropy when every atom is in its excited state? (3) What is the entropy when half the atoms are in their excited states? What are the spatial distributions and orientations of the atoms in each case? What is the order in each of the above cases? Define what you mean by order. What is the “information” in each of the above cases? Define what you mean by information. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Intelligent Designer said: Mike, Maybe I should take a class from you. If I wanted to learn how to answer that question what class would I take?

much co said: Mike, I'm perfectly well aware of how to count microstates and so on. Your example is fine; I was unfortunately confusing the Helmholtz free energy (which very much does depend on spatial correlations, etc.) for the pure entropy term therein. Sorry about that.

Mike Elzinga said:

much co said: Mike, I'm perfectly well aware of how to count microstates and so on. Your example is fine; I was unfortunately confusing the Helmholtz free energy (which very much does depend on spatial correlations, etc.) for the pure entropy term therein. Sorry about that.

I suspected as much from your mention of spin-spin interactions and the implications for frustration in tightly coupled Ising models. Just checking. :-) As you have just seen, we get a lot of ID/creationist pretenders from time to time. The real frustration began here in 1973. :-(

Actually, he might just start with Frank Lambert's various pages to at least get an idea of what "entropy" means. Start with "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions":

http://entropysite.oxy.edu/cracked_crutch.html

-- and then move on to "Entropy Is Simple":

http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/

mrg said: Actually, he might just start with Frank Lambert's various pages to at least get an idea of what "entropy" means. Start with "Disorder — A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions": http://entropysite.oxy.edu/cracked_crutch.html -- and then move on to "Entropy Is Simple": http://entropysimple.oxy.edu/

I'm not sure that a nonspecialist would find upper-class texts a good use of his time, but since I doubt he'll even absorb Lambert's informal primers on the subject, it hardly matters.

IBelieveInGod said: I would suggest that you have a problem with comprehension, it is silly to think that any software was not designed, or that any new feature was not designed at some point in time. Any new feature must of been coded for at some point, therefore it was designed, and to state the opposite would be a lie. True there are times that code can be used in completely different software programs, but that does not change the fact that the code was designed at some point in time by an intelligent designer:) Calling me names and insulting my intelligence does nothing for your argument, because you are just plain wrong.

W. H. Heydt said: The original dot-matrix printers were built by Centronics. Those printers included software, in the for of ROM, to do the character imaging during operation.

There is no weaseling out of this one IBelieveInGod. Heydt is right. Not every new feature is planned. You need to be more careful about using those words "any" and "every" because they will be interpreted literally.

Now suppose you tell me who “designed” double width printing in dot matrix printers…

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: I would suggest that you have a problem with comprehension, it is silly to think that any software was not designed, or that any new feature was not designed at some point in time. Any new feature must of been coded for at some point, therefore it was designed, and to state the opposite would be a lie. True there are times that code can be used in completely different software programs, but that does not change the fact that the code was designed at some point in time by an intelligent designer:) Calling me names and insulting my intelligence does nothing for your argument, because you are just plain wrong.

I'm going to give a very tiny example that illustrates just how wrong you are. The original dot-matrix printers were built by Centronics. Those printers included software, in the for of ROM, to do the character imaging during operation. Some users of the printers discovered that if they include a particular code sequence in the data sent to the printers, the printer would print double width characters. When Centronics was notified about this behavior, their reaction was that it was a bug in the printer software and that they would fix it. The users insisted that it NOT be be fixed. They liked having double width print as a FEATURE, and so it was ever after in dot matrix printers...every other manufacturer of dot matrix printers had to copy the Centronics "bug" in order to compete in features. Now suppose you tell me who "designed" double width printing in dot matrix printers... --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Perhaps I was taking Mike to literally. I suspect that Dembski does believe that emzymes which are specified by DNA information push matter around. He probably also believes that DNA information specifies how protiens fold into their tertiary structure. Is this what you were talking about Mike?

I suspect that Dembski does believe that emzymes which are specified by DNA information push matter around.

Flint said: Example: Initiate a war against drugs. Discover that this effort (1) fails to reduce drug usage; (2) presents the opportunity to make easy and enormous profits for creating and selling drugs; (3) subsidizes and cements organized crime throughout society in countless aread; (4) costs enormous sums of taxpayer money to "accomplish" all this. BUT, nobody can oppose the program because it LOOKS like they are approving of drug addiction. That they are opposing the intent, rather than the results.

Flint said: Why insert "information" into this description? We know how DNA works. This is like saying that "engine information" powers your car.

Intelligent Designer said: IBIG is dead wrong about one thing. Those programmers did not remove every bug (wink). But everything else IBIG said is right on.

Wolfhound said:

Intelligent Designer said: IBIG is dead wrong about one thing. Those programmers did not remove every bug (wink). But everything else IBIG said is right on.

This. Go away, idiot troll.

Intelligent Designer said: By the way, which intelligent design proponent said that "information pushes matter around".

Malchus said: Actually, he was lying when he said that. He even admitted it afterwards. I looked up the banning of ID on Pharyngula. He was banned for lying.

Intelligent Designer said: You need to be more careful about using those words "any" and "every" because they will be interpreted literally.

Of course their are also atomic bombs. Before they were made highly intellignet people used information to specify how they were to be built. Atomic bombs can move a lot of matter around. I suspect Dembski and his minions would agree. Mike is this what you mean by intelligence moving information around?

Dale Husband said: Addiction to illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and painkillers are all the same basic HEALTH problem and should never have been made a criminal problem, because there is nothing about simply taking drugs in itself that is harmful or unethical. If that were the case, every pharmacy would soon be out of business! The "war on drugs" was a phony operation from the get-go and should be ended! It only empowers the state at the expense of the people.

Intelligent Designer said: Of course their are also atomic bombs. Before they were made highly intellignet people used information to specify how they were to be built. Atomic bombs can move a lot of matter around. I suspect Dembski and his minions would agree. Mike is this what you mean by intelligence moving information around?

Intelligent Designer the clueless whined:

Mike Elzinga said: I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development. There is no indication whatsoever in his comments that he gets what is being illustrated by the example of software evolution. The inability to grasp analogies and metaphors is what is behind the literal readings of authoritarian writings. Almost all cognitive development specialists would place IBIG’s level somewhere below that of a pre-teen; and more likely somewhere in early elementary school.

This is a perfect example of an ad hominem abusive attack. I think I'll use it on my next blog post.

Paul Burnett said:

Intelligent Designer said: By the way, which intelligent design proponent said that "information pushes matter around".

Put it another way: Is the "intelligent designer" of the information the same entity as the (purportedly) "intelligent creator" of matter? Or: Are the "intelligent designer" and the "intelligent creator" the same entity? Are creationists who support intelligent design proposing a single entity (an intelligent designer who is also an intelligent creator) or a duality?

Intelligent Designer the malingering moronic loon opined: Mike, Maybe I should take a class from you. If I wanted to learn how to answer that question what class would I take? By the way, which intelligent design proponent said that "information pushes matter around". Please give me a reference.

Intelligent Designer the magnificient loon declared:

Paul Burnett said:

Intelligent Designer said: By the way, which intelligent design proponent said that "information pushes matter around".

Put it another way: Is the "intelligent designer" of the information the same entity as the (purportedly) "intelligent creator" of matter? Or: Are the "intelligent designer" and the "intelligent creator" the same entity? Are creationists who support intelligent design proposing a single entity (an intelligent designer who is also an intelligent creator) or a duality?

Paul, you are assuming that those favoring intelligent design all think the same way. I only speak for myself. I am sure IBIG and I can find a lot of things to disagree about. My answer to your question is "I don't know". I have written a blog entry titled "What is God" -- but it is just funny stuff.

John Kwok said: Say Intelligent Designer, how come you haven't addressed these points of mine: He’s (that is Mike E.) merely pointing out how Intelligent Design proponents - presumably yourself included - have misinterpreted scientific data to suit their own ends. A recent classic example is in Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell” in which Meyer proclaims how we can “test” for deviations from design via the fossil record, to see how different species diverged from some ideal “design”, ignoring the constraints imposed by genealogy - or rather, it’s biological equivalent, phylogeny. If that’s the best ID can do, then it can’t do anything at all, unless one wishes to invoke KRID (Kwok - Roddenberry Intelligent Design) in which I have asserted that the Intelligent Designer(s) were Klingons traveling backward in time to the primordial Earth and seeded it with life, more than 4.2 Billion Years ago.

Kwok,

Since you are a Diest as am I, I would be interested in finding out exactly where we disagree. Such a conversation would be way off topic though. If you have a similar interest send a message to me by facebook.

much co said:

Intelligent Designer said: Of course their are also atomic bombs. Before they were made highly intellignet people used information to specify how they were to be built. Atomic bombs can move a lot of matter around. I suspect Dembski and his minions would agree. Mike is this what you mean by intelligence moving information around?

Do you *think* that's what he means? Or are you trying to get more accusations to put on your "PandasThumb = Ad Hominem Abusive" blog post?

Intelligent Designer the malingering mendicat babbled: Kwok, Since you are a Diest as am I, I would be interested in finding out exactly where we disagree. Such a conversation would be way off topic though. If you have a similar interest send a message to me by facebook.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the most telling things about that current blog is not only how it has been edited, but there are no links back to this thread that would allow anyone to find out how he got his clock cleaned when he couldn’t articulate or defend ID/creationist writings and also couldn’t articulate and defend his funny ideas about entropy and the second law.

John Kwok said: Intelligent Designer, what's your handle at Facebook? But seriously, I think it's more important we discuss issues here, especially when you seem to have the same kind of mental cognition problem that IBelieveInGodlyStupidity does.

Yes, you all are realizing that Stimpy (Intelligent Designer) is bugfuck nuts.

seriously, I've said this for years now, but isn't it time to realize that people like IBiggy and Stimpy don't actually bring anything to a discussion other than insanity and derailment?

When I used to spend more time here, years back, it was typically the case that these kinds of people were either given their own "special" threads to play in, or just banned entirely.

there simply is no rational argument to let them hang around.

they don't even present a credible argument for CREATIONISM to argue against FFS.

it's a complete waste, no MORE than that, very much a DETRIMENT, to let these people shit all over threads again and again.

sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.

they have ZERO value to this blog.

they have ZERO value to this blog.

Scott F said:

IBelieveInGod said: I would suggest that you have a problem with comprehension, it is silly to think that any software was not designed, or that any new feature was not designed at some point in time. Any new feature must of been coded for at some point, therefore it was designed, and to state the opposite would be a lie. True there are times that code can be used in completely different software programs, but that does not change the fact that the code was designed at some point in time by an intelligent designer:) Calling me names and insulting my intelligence does nothing for your argument, because you are just plain wrong.

Dear IBIG, Sorry about the long post, but you seemed to have missed the point entirely. I never suggested that any software was not "designed", in the sense that it was written by a human being. My point was that it was "designed" for a different purpose than it was used for. Further, in the story I related, the "design" was based on assumptions and requirements that had nothing to do with the actual function of the software. So, from a functional stand point the "design" ends up looking nonsensical and "random". Several years later, even knowing that the software was written by a human, it doesn't look "designed" at all. Have you ever used a screwdriver as a hammer? I have. I've seen lots of people do it. It makes a lousy hammer. Yes, the screwdriver was "designed", but not as a hammer. But if all you have is a screwdriver, then it makes a reasonable approximation of a hammer. So, the fact that it can be used as a hammer, means that this tool was not "designed" for the purpose to which it is being used. Do you understand the distinction?

John Kwok said:

Intelligent Designer the clueless whined:

Mike Elzinga said: I would offer this as yet another example of arrested cognitive development. There is no indication whatsoever in his comments that he gets what is being illustrated by the example of software evolution. The inability to grasp analogies and metaphors is what is behind the literal readings of authoritarian writings. Almost all cognitive development specialists would place IBIG’s level somewhere below that of a pre-teen; and more likely somewhere in early elementary school.

This is a perfect example of an ad hominem abusive attack. I think I'll use it on my next blog post.

It's not an ad hominem but the sad, but true, admission from Mike as to what is so obvious about IBIG and you.

Rolf Aalberg said: Right.They complain about ad hominem and abuse, but what are they themselves laying on the table? Essentially: “Scientists are idiots. You don’t know what you are talking about. We are the ones who know. Doesn’t all our questions reveal your stupidity?”

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant whined and moaned: REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness. Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough. But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code. Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design Now if you want to get into an argument that information in nature was designed by intelligence, and then evolved on it's own, then let's have at it. But if that is the case, then it sure sounds a lot like intelligent design. Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone babbled:

John Kwok said: Intelligent Designer, what's your handle at Facebook? But seriously, I think it's more important we discuss issues here, especially when you seem to have the same kind of mental cognition problem that IBelieveInGodlyStupidity does.

I am sure everyone here would be bored to death. www.facebook.com/people/Randy-Stimpson/569898344

Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone proclaimed:

Mike Elzinga said: One of the most telling things about that current blog is not only how it has been edited, but there are no links back to this thread that would allow anyone to find out how he got his clock cleaned when he couldn’t articulate or defend ID/creationist writings and also couldn’t articulate and defend his funny ideas about entropy and the second law.

My blog is unmoderated. Feel free to post a link back to here in the comments section.

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant whined and moaned: REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness. Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough. But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code. Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design Now if you want to get into an argument that information in nature was designed by intelligence, and then evolved on it's own, then let's have at it. But if that is the case, then it sure sounds a lot like intelligent design. Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You still can't get it through your thick skull - like Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone or Floyd Lee malicious mendicant extraordinaire or Steve P. the world's best Taiwanese rug merchant - but evolution doesn' work via random mutations. Such random mutations occur as the result of the population's genealogical history - what is referred to by those cognizant of bioloogy as phylogenetic history - and the various physical and biological factors acting via Natural Selection of the population itself within the habitat it dwells in. So not only is your latest breathtaking inanity dead wrong, but you are such a "scientific" cretin that you can't get it.

IBelieveInGod said:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant whined and moaned: REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness. Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough. But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code. Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design Now if you want to get into an argument that information in nature was designed by intelligence, and then evolved on it's own, then let's have at it. But if that is the case, then it sure sounds a lot like intelligent design. Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You still can't get it through your thick skull - like Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone or Floyd Lee malicious mendicant extraordinaire or Steve P. the world's best Taiwanese rug merchant - but evolution doesn' work via random mutations. Such random mutations occur as the result of the population's genealogical history - what is referred to by those cognizant of bioloogy as phylogenetic history - and the various physical and biological factors acting via Natural Selection of the population itself within the habitat it dwells in. So not only is your latest breathtaking inanity dead wrong, but you are such a "scientific" cretin that you can't get it.

Really? So, what about first life that had no genealogical history?

Intelligent Designer -

What follows is my interpretation, partial paraphrase, and critique of some of the positions taken by you and IBIG, and a comparison between them. Please note, again, that this is not ad hominem, and indeed, is not really even very insulting. In fact, by presenting your views in this forum, this is implicitly the type of feedback you seek, and I am doing you a favor by giving it.

IBIG defends beliefs that, while demonstrably false, are culturally accepted and pragmatically self-serving. Of course, IBIG is plagued with doubts and dissonance (despite the superficial cognitive rigidity). He or she wastes massive amounts of time on this site, where no-one will be convinced, in a vain effort to argue away the dissonance. In a twisted way, this actually speaks to IBIG's relative sincerity. I said "relative". A more strategic fundamentalist would be seeking out ways to dominate and manipulate vulnerable people.

Still, even IBIG is coming from the context of ideas that have some cultural acceptance.

You, on the other hand, spend your time using very silly word tricks to try to defend two quite separate issues of your own, one of which I have no particular problem with.

1) Your idea of a an "imperfect creator" has no relevance to me; I can't "disprove" it, of course. There is no rational reason to adopt such a belief, but in isolation it is just a pointless, non-disprovable conjecture that some kind unknown magic occurred in the distant past (if you disagree with this, simply tell me who the designer is, what the designer designed, when the designer designed it, how the designer designed it, and how we can distinguish the precise acts of the designer from natural events).

However, I do note that your vision of the "designer" is most eccentric, unlike the socially approved religious dogma of IBIG. You feign to make common cause with IBIG; quite treacherous of you, as your "frail designer" is at least as offensive to his or her faith in a traditional omnipotent Jehovah as is complete lack of faith in gods.

2) Your comments about thermodynamics and biological evolution, on the other hand, are wrong, and wrong at an undergraduate or high school senior level. I don't know if you have a formal Computer Science bachelor's degree. I also can't recall if, where I went to university, General Chemistry was required for a bachelor's in Computer Science (I believe it was required for all science degrees). At any rate, you seem to have badly missed out on education in these areas.

I strongly support your right to have wrong ideas about these topics and express them, as long as you don't try to violate my rights. However, I can't really see what the point is.

REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own,

But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code.

Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument.

Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature.

Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

Glen Davidson said:

Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You mean that you're just being dishonest, and deliberately obtuse? That's no better than admitting to being the drooling idiot that you appear to be. Glen Davidson

Stanton said:

Glen Davidson said:

Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You mean that you're just being dishonest, and deliberately obtuse? That's no better than admitting to being the drooling idiot that you appear to be. Glen Davidson

Don't forget that he also mocks and scolds us (and occasionally threatens that God will kill and torture us for all eternity) because we aren't deliberately drooling idiots for Jesus like he is, too.

Stanton said:

Glen Davidson said:

Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You mean that you're just being dishonest, and deliberately obtuse? That's no better than admitting to being the drooling idiot that you appear to be. Glen Davidson

Don't forget that he also mocks and scolds us (and occasionally threatens that God will kill and torture us for all eternity) because we aren't deliberately drooling idiots for Jesus like he is, too.

W. H. Heydt said:

Stanton said:

Glen Davidson said:

Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You mean that you're just being dishonest, and deliberately obtuse? That's no better than admitting to being the drooling idiot that you appear to be. Glen Davidson

Don't forget that he also mocks and scolds us (and occasionally threatens that God will kill and torture us for all eternity) because we aren't deliberately drooling idiots for Jesus like he is, too.

To take a leaf from Sarte, the worse fate would be to put up with him for all eternity... --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Rolf Aalberg said:

they have ZERO value to this blog.

Right.They complain about ad hominem and abuse, but what are they themselves laying on the table? Essentially: “Scientists are idiots. You don’t know what you are talking about. We are the ones who know. Doesn’t all our questions reveal your stupidity?” The intent and purpose of their appearance at sites like this is obvious.

Wot, you think I'm going to click on that link to read something by the ICR?! NO WAY.

We're not ALL masochists here, MrE! I have enough trouble maintaining my IQ points -- I'm not going to cooperate in having them dragged down by contagion.

mrg said: Wot, you think I'm going to click on that link to read something by the ICR?! NO WAY. We're not ALL masochists here, MrE! I have enough trouble maintaining my IQ points -- I'm not going to cooperate in having them dragged down by contagion.

Stanton said:

Glen Davidson said:

Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You mean that you're just being dishonest, and deliberately obtuse? That's no better than admitting to being the drooling idiot that you appear to be. Glen Davidson

Don't forget that he also mocks and scolds us (and occasionally threatens that God will kill and torture us for all eternity) because we aren't deliberately drooling idiots for Jesus like he is, too.

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant whined and moaned: REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness. Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough. But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code. Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design Now if you want to get into an argument that information in nature was designed by intelligence, and then evolved on it's own, then let's have at it. But if that is the case, then it sure sounds a lot like intelligent design. Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You still can't get it through your thick skull - like Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone or Floyd Lee malicious mendicant extraordinaire or Steve P. the world's best Taiwanese rug merchant - but evolution doesn' work via random mutations. Such random mutations occur as the result of the population's genealogical history - what is referred to by those cognizant of bioloogy as phylogenetic history - and the various physical and biological factors acting via Natural Selection of the population itself within the habitat it dwells in. So not only is your latest breathtaking inanity dead wrong, but you are such a "scientific" cretin that you can't get it.

IBelieveInGod said: So, what about first life that had no genealogical history?

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said: Wot, you think I'm going to click on that link to read something by the ICR?! NO WAY. We're not ALL masochists here, MrE! I have enough trouble maintaining my IQ points -- I'm not going to cooperate in having them dragged down by contagion.

Yea tho’ I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil; because I am an IDiot.

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant babbled:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant whined and moaned: REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness. Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough. But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code. Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design Now if you want to get into an argument that information in nature was designed by intelligence, and then evolved on it's own, then let's have at it. But if that is the case, then it sure sounds a lot like intelligent design. Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You still can't get it through your thick skull - like Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone or Floyd Lee malicious mendicant extraordinaire or Steve P. the world's best Taiwanese rug merchant - but evolution doesn' work via random mutations. Such random mutations occur as the result of the population's genealogical history - what is referred to by those cognizant of bioloogy as phylogenetic history - and the various physical and biological factors acting via Natural Selection of the population itself within the habitat it dwells in. So not only is your latest breathtaking inanity dead wrong, but you are such a "scientific" cretin that you can't get it.

You still couldn't answer the question that I posted could you: So, what about first life that had no genealogical history?

IBelieveInGod said: I knew exactly what you were referring to,

but isn't the argument about whether something is intelligently designed or not?

I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve,

but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own,

They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness.

Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough.

But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code.

Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is [a] stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature.

Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid

Scott F said:

Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid

And just calling me "stupid" doesn't help your argument any.

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant babbled:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant whined and moaned: REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness. Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough. But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code. Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design Now if you want to get into an argument that information in nature was designed by intelligence, and then evolved on it's own, then let's have at it. But if that is the case, then it sure sounds a lot like intelligent design. Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You still can't get it through your thick skull - like Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone or Floyd Lee malicious mendicant extraordinaire or Steve P. the world's best Taiwanese rug merchant - but evolution doesn' work via random mutations. Such random mutations occur as the result of the population's genealogical history - what is referred to by those cognizant of bioloogy as phylogenetic history - and the various physical and biological factors acting via Natural Selection of the population itself within the habitat it dwells in. So not only is your latest breathtaking inanity dead wrong, but you are such a "scientific" cretin that you can't get it.

You still couldn't answer the question that I posted could you: So, what about first life that had no genealogical history?

I told you that the Klingons were the Intelligent Designers, moron. Can't you read IDiot?

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, what about first life that had no genealogical history?

Why don’t you explain what you mean by “genealogical history” and tell us what it has to do with the topic of this thread?

I commend the poster who pointed out that not only does IBIG fail to understand the analogy - demonstrating at best, a pre-adolescent level of cognition - but IBIG does not even understand that he doesn't understand. The adults are talking, yet he seems incapable of understanding what is being said. Fascinating.

My apologies for the duplicate post.

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, what about first life that had no genealogical history?

Why don’t you explain what you mean by “genealogical history” and tell us what it has to do with the topic of this thread?

Having trouble with comprehension? Didn't you read the post I was responding to? Go back and read it, because I was just responding to John Kwok's post.

IBelieveInGod said:

Stanton said:

Glen Davidson said:

Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You mean that you're just being dishonest, and deliberately obtuse? That's no better than admitting to being the drooling idiot that you appear to be. Glen Davidson

Don't forget that he also mocks and scolds us (and occasionally threatens that God will kill and torture us for all eternity) because we aren't deliberately drooling idiots for Jesus like he is, too.

Could you provide a link to just one post, where I claimed that God will kill you? He won't have to do that, because life is short and eventually every single person posting here will be dead.

I would also suggest that allowing IBIG to continue posting here is simply exacerbating his mental health issues and distracting him from getting the help he needs.

Mike Elzinga said: And it is clear you don’t even understand what I am telling you right now.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: And it is clear you don’t even understand what I am telling you right now.

But, in all kindness, why talk to him? I skip over his postings. He has nothing to say of interest, he has no interest in what is said to him. There is no "there" there.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: And it is clear you don’t even understand what I am telling you right now.

But, in all kindness, why talk to him? I skip over his postings. He has nothing to say of interest, he has no interest in what is said to him. There is no "there" there.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: And it is clear you don’t even understand what I am telling you right now.

But, in all kindness, why talk to him? I skip over his postings. He has nothing to say of interest, he has no interest in what is said to him. There is no "there" there.

Malchus said: I commend the poster who pointed out that not only does IBIG fail to understand the analogy - demonstrating at best, a pre-adolescent level of cognition - but IBIG does not even understand that he doesn't understand. The adults are talking, yet he seems incapable of understanding what is being said. Fascinating.

Mike Elzinga said: It might be a cry for help; but it is also an expression of extreme bottled up anger and frustration.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It might be a cry for help; but it is also an expression of extreme bottled up anger and frustration.

I tend to see such activities in terms of egotism. Lacking any public recognition, such people simply make a fuss to attract attention -- and since they never had and never will have any credibility, the fact that their activities have no credibility is irrelevant. I've hardly conquered the world with my online writing efforts. But as someone told me in a different context in my corporate career: people do thank me sometimes. Maybe thanks aren't the end-all of one's aspirations, but I would judge the question of whether one's activities deserve praise is an important one.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It might be a cry for help; but it is also an expression of extreme bottled up anger and frustration.

I tend to see such activities in terms of egotism. Lacking any public recognition, such people simply make a fuss to attract attention -- and since they never had and never will have any credibility, the fact that their activities have no credibility is irrelevant. I've hardly conquered the world with my online writing efforts. But as someone told me in a different context in my corporate career: people do thank me sometimes. Maybe thanks aren't the end-all of one's aspirations, but I would judge the question of whether one's activities deserve praise is an important one.

Scott F said:

IBelieveInGod said: I knew exactly what you were referring to,

No, you really did miss the point entirely.

but isn't the argument about whether something is intelligently designed or not?

Yes, it is about whether something is intelligently designed. But at what level does that design occur? I'll explain below.

I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve,

Good. We're making some progress here.

but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own,

Good. No one has said that an intelligent person is not required to implement software. Let's stipulate for the moment that software doesn't randomly happen on its own. (We'll ignore GA's for now to make the analogy easier.) We're all on the same page so far. Okay?

They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness.

Ooops! Actually, software features are selected for fitness. Again, I'll explain below.

Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough.

Ah, good, we're back on track. So far, we have agreed that software does evolve, and that features of software are selected for fitness by the "environment" (ie, "users"). So, we have two parts to the solution: evolution of software, and a process of selection. We're still on the same page. Okay?

But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code.

Correct, for the purposes of this discussion. As previously stipulated, all software is written by human beings who are, more or less, intelligent.

Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is [a] stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature.

Now we've reached the crux of the matter, the point you missed. Here is the key point: Just because the stipulated software is a result of human intelligence, that does not imply that it was "intelligently designed". Now let me explain. Think of Microsoft as a one-celled organism that takes in money and emits software. Think of the nucleus and ribosomes as the Software Development departments. Think of the mitochondria as the Finance department (the organism doesn't function without a flow of money). Think of the cell wall as the Sales and Marketing and Tech Support departments; all of the outward facing functions. Now, Tech Support takes in feedback from the environment (software users), and gives that feedback to Software Development. Based on this feedback, the nucleus and ribosomes (real, actual people) fix bugs in the software (sometimes), add new features (sometimes), and give the results to Sales and Marketing. (As an aside, let's further stipulate that truly "random" code changes wouldn't make it past either QA or Marketing. The software has to perform some valid function, otherwise the Environment will never be allowed to see the change.) Marketing presents the new software to the environment (software users), who in turn give money to Sales, which keeps the mitochondria happy. There is selection going on. If the environment (users) don't like the software that Marketing presents, they don't give money to Sales, and the mitochondria get upset. There is "evolution" going on: the software product is changing over time in response to outside stimulus. In fact, the internal structure of the Software Development department might change in response to outside stimulus. "Selection" and "evolution". No randomness there at all. Right? But what does this look like from the outside, from the perspective of the environment (software users)? The User gives feedback and money to the Microsoft organism, and out comes software (and lots of useless stuff like marketing literature). In response to the User's feedback and money, the software changes. It's a black box. But occasionally, something unusual happens. Sometimes, a new feature that the User didn't ask for shows up. If the Users like it, they give more money to the organism. If the Users don't like it, they withhold money and give feedback to Tech Support instead. The new feature either "survives" or "withers" based on User feedback. Thus, "Selection". Were these new features written by intelligent humans? You betcha. Were they "designed"? As stipulated, yes, they were "designed". But from the Users perspective, from outside of the organism, how can you tell? From the Users perspective, the changes appear to be completely random. Can the User honestly say that removing the "Cut", "Copy", and "Paste" items from the "Edit" menu was not a "random" event? It sure looks random from the outside. And that's the whole point. From outside of the Microsoft organism, from outside the black box, some of the behaviour looks like a response to feedback, run through a randomizing filter, or some of the behaviour looks entirely random. Yes, we know that software was written by humans, but any features that actually appear to be designed, also appear to be designed at random. Remember, we stipulated that all of the features were "intelligently designed". We stipulated that no truly "random" code is ever presented to the environment. All the features serve a function (to a greater or lesser extent). It is the "whole", the aggregation of features that appear to be random. And that's the whole point. If the aggregate results are indistinguishable from "random" results, and the aggregate results were "designed", then there is no distinguishalbe difference between "random" results and "designed" results. So, we have agreed that software "evolves". We have agreed that software faces "selection" pressure from the environment. And, if we step back far enough so that we can't see the details, the "evolved" features presented for "selection" appear to be "random". Where is the issue with comparing the evolution of software to the evolution of life on earth?

Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid

And just calling me "stupid" doesn't help your argument any.

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It might be a cry for help; but it is also an expression of extreme bottled up anger and frustration.

I tend to see such activities in terms of egotism. Lacking any public recognition, such people simply make a fuss to attract attention -- and since they never had and never will have any credibility, the fact that their activities have no credibility is irrelevant. I've hardly conquered the world with my online writing efforts. But as someone told me in a different context in my corporate career: people do thank me sometimes. Maybe thanks aren't the end-all of one's aspirations, but I would judge the question of whether one's activities deserve praise is an important one.

From what I know of the advice from mental health workers, it is important that people around the sick person not contribute to the continuation of the fantasies. They should instead try to keep the person in touch with reality. But it is extremely difficult and wearing for the healthy people around such people. And in an open forum like this, there is no particular control on such behavior. I suspect a psychiatrist would not allow a patient like IBIG to have access to online forums in which the patient can keep returning to the same behaviors with strangers who can be provoked.

Romans 1:28-30 (New International Version, ©2011) 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

Mike Elzinga said: From what I know of the advice from mental health workers, it is important that people around the sick person not contribute to the continuation of the fantasies. They should instead try to keep the person in touch with reality. But it is extremely difficult and wearing for the healthy people around such people. And in an open forum like this, there is no particular control on such behavior. I suspect a psychiatrist would not allow a patient like IBIG to have access to online forums in which the patient can keep returning to the same behaviors with strangers who can be provoked.

IBelieveInLucifer the malingering malicious mendicant babbled:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant babbled:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Mendicant whined and moaned: REALLY? If anyone has a problem with cognitive development it would be you, if you can't understand the point that I have been making, then I pity you. Your intelligence is laughable in the light of your lack of understanding. I am not claiming that software doesn't evolve, but that the evolution of software is still brought about by human intelligence, any changes to software whether it be requests for new features by users, fixes for bugs, etc... require an intelligent software programmer, or debugger to implement those changes. They don't just randomly happen on their own, and then selected for fitness. Although new software features are selected for fitness by users, and complaints can definitely pressure software manufacturers to make changes to those new features, or even eliminate them if the pressure is great enough. But no one here would claim that those new features, came about as a result of randomly generated code. Comparing the evolution of vehicles, software, electronics, etc... to the supposed evolution of life on earth is stupid argument. Vehicles, software, electronics are all a result of human intelligence, therefore are a product of intelligent design, therefore it is ridiculous to compare this evolution of design to nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design Now if you want to get into an argument that information in nature was designed by intelligence, and then evolved on it's own, then let's have at it. But if that is the case, then it sure sounds a lot like intelligent design. Let me add that there is no problem with my cognition.

You still can't get it through your thick skull - like Intelligent Designer the clueless DI IDiot Borg drone or Floyd Lee malicious mendicant extraordinaire or Steve P. the world's best Taiwanese rug merchant - but evolution doesn' work via random mutations. Such random mutations occur as the result of the population's genealogical history - what is referred to by those cognizant of bioloogy as phylogenetic history - and the various physical and biological factors acting via Natural Selection of the population itself within the habitat it dwells in. So not only is your latest breathtaking inanity dead wrong, but you are such a "scientific" cretin that you can't get it.

You still couldn't answer the question that I posted could you: So, what about first life that had no genealogical history?

I told you that the Klingons were the Intelligent Designers, moron. Can't you read IDiot?

An insincere answer! You were the one who made the claim that evolution doesn't work via random mutations, and that such random mutations occur the result of the population's genealogical history - what is referred to by those cognizant of biology as phylogenetic history. So, the next logical question would be if the first life had no genealogical history, then how would that be possible?

Then why do you persist in continuing to antagonize everyone with your posts, IBelieve?

The reason why everyone assumes that you are mentally ill is because of the content of your posts, which are filled with nonsense, or lies, or boasts of how your FAITH magically makes you more knowledgeable than all of the scientists of the world, or how you use the term "atheist" as a synonym for anything and anyone you dislike.

If you don't like us pointing out how you continually demonstrate yourself to be a pompous idiot with no social skills due to the content of your posts, then why don't you stop posting here?

Quite frankly, you are mentally ill, what with you constantly scolding us on how we don't bow down and worship you for your lies and blathering.

SWT said: So basically, the humanitarian thing to do would be to not feed the trolls. I can get behind that; the tricky part will probably be to ignore the tantrums will almost certainly ensure.

Now if you will admit that there is a higher intelligence a work in the creation of life, then I would like to hear about HIM:)

Flint said:

Now if you will admit that there is a higher intelligence a work in the creation of life, then I would like to hear about HIM:)

But assume just for the sake of discussion that there is NOT a "higher intelligence" at work in the changes life undergoes over time (NOTE: NOT the "creation of life", merely the mechanisms by which it changes). Now, if life changes without direction from that "higher power", what might that change look like? These analogies are intended to show you that it would look very much like the evolution of software.

SWT said: So basically, the humanitarian thing to do would be to not feed the trolls. I can get behind that; the tricky part will probably be to ignore the tantrums will almost certainly ensure.

If you weren’t concerned about my posts, then you wouldn’t even respond to them, and I would go away, but you folks can’t stop responding to my posts, you just can’t help yourselves:):):)

IBelieveInGod said: Tell me why that would be?

Clearly any mutations in an organism are not selected for the future fitness of those mutations, whereas software is designed and modified for future fitness, very different wouldn't agree.

You see that is the difference between intelligence and no-intelligence.

Only intelligence can plan for the future, understand future trends and plan and design accordingly.

Now if you want to admit that God created life, with the inherent ability to adapt to environment, then let's talk because then I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

Mike Elzinga said: Mrg is basically correct in that the Internet is mostly anarchy. So I don’t know if such trolls can be provisionally ignored until they can demonstrate they can articulate like adults and really contribute something to the discussion.

By conscience, you mean the understanding that we can almost always increase our gratification by delaying it? Or the evolutionary history that causes the golden rule to be prominent in nearly all if not every human culture in history?

The experiments exploring our sense of equitable distribution are interesting. The rules are, one person gets to divide something desirable between himself and someone else, any way he sees fit. And if the other person rejects that distribution, neither person gets anything.

When chimps played this game, they turn out to be entirely "rational" - they would accept any distribution that gave them anything at all, on the grounds that something (however little) is better than nothing. But humans demand a nearly equal distribution, on average, and if the divider splits (let's say) $1000 so he gets $800 and the other person gets $200, the other person will nearly always reject this distribution, and be more satisfied with NO money than with $200!

Now, what is there about humans (and this is cross-cultural) that makes them act this way? Speculation is that the way human social groups are constructed simply won't work unless the large majority of its members feel that there is an equitable quid pro quo going on in many many ways.

And conscience, then, is the implicit understanding that violating this quid pro quo may be immediately beneficial to the individual, but eventually destructive of his social milieu, costing him more ultimately than he gained immediately. But YMMV.

Scott F said: I've had my say. Count me in. Though, if anyone knows, I'd appreciate any references you might recommend on hypotheses on the evolution of conscience. I'm still curious about the subject. (Yes, I can google, but it helps to know if someone has vetted the reference.) Thanks.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: I've had my say. Count me in. Though, if anyone knows, I'd appreciate any references you might recommend on hypotheses on the evolution of conscience. I'm still curious about the subject. (Yes, I can google, but it helps to know if someone has vetted the reference.) Thanks.

There is an interesting little book called The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod. It lays out some basic parameters on how individuals come to start cooperating as a result of repeated encounters with other individuals in competitive “games” involving the basic Prisoner’s Paradox. It lays the foundation for how this kind of cooperation, and subsequently the notions of conscience and empathy, can evolve out of interactions among individuals in the course of evolution.

Interesting. I believe that IBIG is actually becoming aware of his failures. I not the increasing repetition of the odd claim that he has accomplished something.

He us desperately anxious.

Scott F said: Sorry. My mistake. I meant, "consciousness", not "conscience". The evolution of the "mind", or the theory of mind. Thanks.

Scott F said: I meant, "consciousness", not "conscience". The evolution of the "mind", or the theory of mind.

My apologies. The spell-checker on my droid doesn't see eye to eye with me on certain words.

Malchus said: Interesting. I believe that IBIG is actually becoming aware of his failures. I not the increasing repetition of the odd claim that he has accomplished something. He us desperately anxious.

Mike Elzinga said: Clearly what he fails to recognize is that the persistent trolls who show up here year after year, with constant repetition of everything they have done before, are all obsessive/compulsive and have very similar mental problems with exactly the same issues I mentioned.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Clearly what he fails to recognize is that the persistent trolls who show up here year after year, with constant repetition of everything they have done before, are all obsessive/compulsive and have very similar mental problems with exactly the same issues I mentioned.

This one is different. He is in a class of his own. He makes Ray Martinez look good.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: Sorry. My mistake. I meant, "consciousness", not "conscience". The evolution of the "mind", or the theory of mind. Thanks.

I also have The Science of the Mind, 2nd Edition, by Owen Flanagan which gives a pretty nice overview of the field. Gerald Edelman has also written some extremely interesting stuff that actually takes into consideration the structure of the brain and nervous systems. I’ll have to dig deeper into my library shelves tucked away in closets to find what I have from him. I’m not sure how technical you want to get. Some of the more recent modeling stuff gets into highly parallel systems with complex feedback. Are you looking for details on brain studies or the developing theories on how such complex structures work?

Scott F said: Hmm... Well, I don't have the medical background to probably get much out of the brain studies. The modeling stuff is where my interests lie, but I'd probably get in over my head rather quickly on purely technical stuff. But if I don't try, I won't learn, will I. :-)

Elzinga, you make a lousy psychiatrist.

Stick to energy wells.

Elzinga, you make a lousy psychiatrist. Stick to energy wells.

... I came here to question, and give an opposing view for those readers who may have come here for the first time. ...

steve p. Taiwanese textile merchant extraordinaire babbled: Elzinga, you make a lousy psychiatrist. Stick to energy wells.

FL the malicious malingering mendicant opined:

Elzinga, you make a lousy psychiatrist. Stick to energy wells.

I was sort of wondering if anybody was going to ask for Mike's credentials. You're not supposed to be handing out psychiatric diagnoses without completing the MD degree and residency requirements. (Also the MD degree is considered ineligible, if earned from the following educational instituion.) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Crackerjack2.jpg

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malicious Mendicant DI IDiot Borg drone drooled:

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It might be a cry for help; but it is also an expression of extreme bottled up anger and frustration.

I tend to see such activities in terms of egotism. Lacking any public recognition, such people simply make a fuss to attract attention -- and since they never had and never will have any credibility, the fact that their activities have no credibility is irrelevant. I've hardly conquered the world with my online writing efforts. But as someone told me in a different context in my corporate career: people do thank me sometimes. Maybe thanks aren't the end-all of one's aspirations, but I would judge the question of whether one's activities deserve praise is an important one.

From what I know of the advice from mental health workers, it is important that people around the sick person not contribute to the continuation of the fantasies. They should instead try to keep the person in touch with reality. But it is extremely difficult and wearing for the healthy people around such people. And in an open forum like this, there is no particular control on such behavior. I suspect a psychiatrist would not allow a patient like IBIG to have access to online forums in which the patient can keep returning to the same behaviors with strangers who can be provoked.

This is how you get out of answering tough questions? Using personal attacks against your opposition? If you really think that I'm mentally ill, and have thought that all along, then it would have been extremely foolish on your part to even respond to my posts. I'm not mentally ill, and have accomplished more then you would like to admit here. I have no intention of changing your mind, because chances are you probably already have been given over to a depraved mind. I came here to question, and give an opposing view for those readers who may have come here for the first time. Clearly I have accomplished more here then you would ever admit. If you weren't concerned about my posts, then you wouldn't even respond to them, and I would go away, but you folks can't stop responding to my posts, you just can't help yourselves:):):) I think it is comical, it really is! You will never admit that there are serious problems with evolutionary theories. So every time anyone comes here to question your FAITH, then you always resort to same tactics every single time; name calling, questioning sanity, etc... I have watched every single person in opposition to your views receive this same treatment. You think it bothers me, but really it doesn't, I actually find it quite comical. So, if you think that claiming that I have a mental disorder will work, then you are sadly mistaken. Here is a scripture that I believe applies to many here including you:

Romans 1:28-30 (New International Version, ©2011) 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

Without even being a psychiatrist I could have stacked arguments high wrt IBIG. His conduct here reeks of projection (Matt. 7:1 - 5.) and stupidity. It just makes no sense responding to that sort of creationist; the sort that virtually all of them are.

To Jack Scanlan,

In case you haven't given up yet on this thread,

It is interesting that you would look at our side's penchant for seeing duality in nature. You OP seems to imply on your part (along with the regulars that post here ) that you accept the continuity of matter, from rocks to rabbits and macro to micro evolution. Is this a fair assessment?

If so, in this vein, let me pick your brain. Here is a scenario I want to look at. If Man designs things, yet man is part of nature, then design (looking at it of course from your(pl) perspective) would presumably also be present as a general property of nature.

What I am getting at is, if you don't accept discontinuities in nature, would you also deny that there exists a discontinuity between nature's particular ability to design (in the form of Man) and nature's general ability to design (in the form of organisms)?

Or putting it conversely, is there a continuity between nature in particular designing things(in the form of Man) and nature in general designing things (in the form of DNA, enzymes, proteins, metabolic cycles, defense/digestive/sense mechanisms)?

Thanks in advance.

Is this some sort of a joke? You CAN'T be serious.

Rolf Aalberg said: IBIG comes clean:

... I came here to question harass, and give an opposing insane view for those readers who may have come here for the first time. ...

The definitive version: “A watch is an object designed by humans that is complex and features a purposeful arrangement of parts – that is, involves ‘complex specified information’. Organisms are complex and feature a purposeful arrangement of parts, meaning they feature CSI too, therefore they’re designed by humans.”

Perfectly logical, no?

So basically, the humanitarian thing to do would be to not feed the trolls. I can get behind that; the tricky part will probably be to ignore the tantrums will almost certainly ensure.

I was sort of wondering if anybody was going to ask for Mike’s credentials. You’re not supposed to be handing out psychiatric diagnoses without completing the MD degree and residency requirements.

OR: If we design an origami fox out of a piece of paper, does that prove that a fox was Designed, or does it prove that foxes are made of paper?

steve p. said: To Jack Scanlan, In case you haven't given up yet on this thread, It is interesting that you would look at our side's penchant for seeing duality in nature. You OP seems to imply on your part (along with the regulars that post here ) that you accept the continuity of matter, from rocks to rabbits and macro to micro evolution. Is this a fair assessment? If so, in this vein, let me pick your brain. Here is a scenario I want to look at. If Man designs things, yet man is part of nature, then design (looking at it of course from your(pl) perspective) would presumably also be present as a general property of nature. What I am getting at is, if you don't accept discontinuities in nature, would you also deny that there exists a discontinuity between nature's particular ability to design (in the form of Man) and nature's general ability to design (in the form of organisms)? Or putting it conversely, is there a continuity between nature in particular designing things(in the form of Man) and nature in general designing things (in the form of DNA, enzymes, proteins, metabolic cycles, defense/digestive/sense mechanisms)? Thanks in advance.

It is interesting that you would look at our side’s penchant for seeing duality in nature. You OP seems to imply on your part (along with the regulars that post here ) that you accept the continuity of matter, from rocks to rabbits and macro to micro evolution. Is this a fair assessment?

If so, in this vein, let me pick your brain. Here is a scenario I want to look at. If Man designs things, yet man is part of nature, then design (looking at it of course from your(pl) perspective) would presumably also be present as a general property of nature.

What I am getting at is, if you don’t accept discontinuities in nature, would you also deny that there exists a discontinuity between nature’s particular ability to design (in the form of Man) and nature’s general ability to design (in the form of organisms)?

Or putting it conversely, is there a continuity between nature in particular designing things(in the form of Man) and nature in general designing things (in the form of DNA, enzymes, proteins, metabolic cycles, defense/digestive/sense mechanisms)?

You OP seems to imply on your part (along with the regulars that post here ) that you accept the continuity of matter, from rocks to rabbits and macro to micro evolution. Is this a fair assessment?

If Man designs things, yet man is part of nature, then design (looking at it of course from your(pl) perspective) would presumably also be present as a general property of nature.

would you also deny that there exists a discontinuity between nature's particular ability to design (in the form of Man) and nature's general ability to design (in the form of organisms)?

Or putting it conversely, is there a continuity between nature in particular designing things(in the form of Man) and nature in general designing things (in the form of DNA, enzymes, proteins, metabolic cycles, defense/digestive/sense mechanisms)?

No, it’s meaningless. There are continuities and discontinuities, and your lazy generalizations obscure, rather than clarify.

You don’t even begin to do logic correctly. You don’t get to take a particular–man’s abilities–and generalize it to be a property of nature. Fish swim and are part of nature. Does that mean that swimming is a general property of nature?

Unless of course Stevie would like to tell us what the difference is between the carbon atoms in diamonds, animals and humans. Thought not.

Well there is your answer. Matter is matter. Period. No magic, no souls, no ghosts or goblins. Deal with it.

Unless of course you want to argue that when a human made a diamond ring out of it, the carbon in the diamond suddenly became fundamentally different. Now all you have to do is get in the lab and demonstrate the difference. Good luck.

steve p. Taiwanese textile merchant extraordinaire and delusional scientific illiterate jerk babbled: To Jack Scanlan, In case you haven't given up yet on this thread, It is interesting that you would look at our side's penchant for seeing duality in nature. You OP seems to imply on your part (along with the regulars that post here ) that you accept the continuity of matter, from rocks to rabbits and macro to micro evolution. Is this a fair assessment? If so, in this vein, let me pick your brain. Here is a scenario I want to look at. If Man designs things, yet man is part of nature, then design (looking at it of course from your(pl) perspective) would presumably also be present as a general property of nature. What I am getting at is, if you don't accept discontinuities in nature, would you also deny that there exists a discontinuity between nature's particular ability to design (in the form of Man) and nature's general ability to design (in the form of organisms)? Or putting it conversely, is there a continuity between nature in particular designing things(in the form of Man) and nature in general designing things (in the form of DNA, enzymes, proteins, metabolic cycles, defense/digestive/sense mechanisms)? Thanks in advance.

FL said: I was sort of wondering if anybody was going to ask for Mike's credentials. You're not supposed to be handing out psychiatric diagnoses without completing the MD degree and residency requirements. (Also the MD degree is considered ineligible, if earned from the following educational instituion.) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Crackerjack2.jpg

harold said: However, Mike or anyone else has the perfect right to speculate about the mental state of others. He hasn't mentioned any specific psychiatric diagnoses, but has every right to. In general some type of license is required to offer a psychiatric diagnosis in the context of actually advising or offering treatment. Technically, one need not be a psychiatrist. A clinical psychologist, social worker trained in counseling, or physician from another specialty might also entertain a diagnosis, and in some situations, e.g. mild clinical depression, the former two would be competent to initiate non-pharmaceutical treatment.

One of the things we know and experience every day is entropy. Entropy is the tendency for things to become unorganized. Intelligence, on the other hand, can make things organized. Life is highly organized and its existence is contrary to entropy.

harold said: Thus, although your qualifications as an educator help you to make accurate comments about the cognitive style of certain frequent posters, the comments also stand as accurate on their own, regardless of the author's formal credentials.

Mike Elzinga said: What we see in these trolls is so common and so classic, that most people’s life experiences allow them to recognize it almost instantly.

steve p. said: Elzinga, you make a lousy psychiatrist. Stick to energy wells.

Scott F said: What is most striking to the lay person, as you pointed out earlier, is the inability to grasp analogies and metaphors.

mrg said:

Scott F said: What is most striking to the lay person, as you pointed out earlier, is the inability to grasp analogies and metaphors.

Heh! I would say they grasp them too hard. Creationists are absolutely hooked on reasoning by analogy. True, they don't really understand what an analogy is: it's a comparison between two things that are alike in some ways but unlike in others. And the only way to determine the ways in which they are alike and in which they are unlike is to GO CHECK. In no way is it true that because they are alike in SOME ways they must be alike in OTHERS.

Evidently many here believe that intelligence had something to do with evolution:) Using the software analogy, which clearly is a known product of human intelligence as a metaphor for evolution, shows that many here appear to believe that evolution needs intelligence to succeed at bringing about new morphological structures:) Thank you for the posts, I will take it then that most here believe in a type of intelligent design:) If a metaphor is a comparison that shows how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in one important way, then how would using software design help your case for evolution, considering we know that software is a product of human intelligence.

I would suggest that software evolution is a much better analogy fore creationism, then evolution from common descent. According to evolution by common descent all life evolved from a common ancestor, whereas creationists believe that God created many kinds of life with the ability to change and adapt within kind. Each software program is created from the ground up for a purpose, whether is be an operating system, word processor, accounting software, cad program, etc.. and then such software programs if successful go through updates through the years to add new features and improvements, but a word processor software didn't start out as a lower level operating system first, and then evolve into a word processing program, it started out as a word processor program from the very beginning, with successive updates bringing new features and improvements. So do you still want to continue the software analogy?

Naw, I'm not gonna do that. You don't really think I'd see anything I haven't seen a dozen times before? And if you suggest that it's extraordinarily BAD by such standard, I have to reply: "That's NOT an encouragement."

The bit about "fundy logic being superior to secular logic" was enough. Hume was willing to tolerate beliefs on the basis of faith and revelation -- I don't really think he respected them, it was just that they didn't give him a handle for any argument.
And it didn't make really make any difference, because he pointed out that once the discussion went on to matters of fact and logic, faith and revelation were absolutely worthless.

Alas, as one of his friends pointed out to Hume, apologist arguments were all his fault. If philosophers like Hume hadn't gone and given religious doctrines a hotfoot, apologists would have never been motivated to come back with all their dodgy and obfuscating arguments.

After reading “Signature in the Cell” I was enlightened to the history and the amount of research that has gone into how DNA works. It is not such a simple structure; there are lots to take into consideration, we are very privileged to know how DNA works.

The finished out come of a cell is solid. Once defined it doesn’t change i.e. if you are a Zebra you don’t change into an Elephant. That in it’s self says a lot. Unless you are at Hogwarts.

If your mum and dad is a Hamster then you are a Hamster if your mum and dad is an Antelope you are an Antelope if your dad is a Horse and your mum a Donkey then you will be a Mule and expect to have no prodigy, but be within the species.

If some amazing special child who looked different and had markings and came about from a union of two people that child would be of the same species but prove that DNA has more to it and more potential that meets the eye.

The substances that we are made of can determine what we become.

We are made of and limited by the allowed environment on this planet. Earth allows flesh and blood to survive on this planet and whatever species we are no living thing is made of any substance not found on Earth if it was that would prove it had come from out there. R2D2 would agree.

Jesus said he was not of this world yet he was the same species as we are.

And no he wasn’t Borg or Klingon, Mr. Kwok.

Marylyn ... could you tell me what language you are writing in? I'd like to put it through Google translation and see if I can understand it.

Marilyn said: ... if your dad is a Horse and your mum a Donkey then you will be a Mule and expect to have no prodigy ...

After reading “Signature in the Cell” I was enlightened to the history and the amount of research that has gone into how DNA works.

Glen Davidson said:

After reading “Signature in the Cell” I was enlightened to the history and the amount of research that has gone into how DNA works.

Good thing real scientists did the work--using evolutionary theory (type of god) to guide them somewhat, along with many other disciplines. What have the IDiots ever done, except take others work and say "God did it"? Glen Davidson

Glen Davidson said: What have the IDiots ever done, except take others work and say "God did it"?

So, IBelieve, tell us again why we need to bow down to and worship your eternally uninformed opinion as though it were God?

I mean, you claim you don't magically know better than all of the scientists in the whole wide world put together, yet, you always talk as though you do.

Stanton said:

Glen Davidson said: What have the IDiots ever done, except take others work and say "God did it"?

Don't forget about getting local school boards in trouble and attempting to destroy science as we know it. You mean besides encouraging people to give them money, and sabotage actual science by both propaganda and getting political cronies to make it easier to teach non-science in place of actual science in schools?

After reading “Signature in the Cell” I was enlightened to the history and the amount of research that has gone into how DNA works. It is not such a simple structure; there are lots to take into consideration, we are very privileged to know how DNA works.

The finished out come of a cell is solid. Once defined it doesn’t change i.e. if you are a Zebra you don’t change into an Elephant. That in it’s self says a lot. Unless you are at Hogwarts.

If your mum and dad is a Hamster then you are a Hamster if your mum and dad is an Antelope you are an Antelope if your dad is a Horse and your mum a Donkey then you will be a Mule and expect to have no prodigy, but be within the species.

If some amazing special child who looked different and had markings and came about from a union of two people that child would be of the same species but prove that DNA has more to it and more potential that meets the eye.

The substances that we are made of can determine what we become.

We are made of and limited by the allowed environment on this planet. Earth allows flesh and blood to survive on this planet and whatever species we are no living thing is made of any substance not found on Earth if it was that would prove it had come from out there. R2D2 would agree.

Jesus said he was not of this world yet he was the same species as we are.

mrg said: Alas, as one of his friends pointed out to Hume, apologist arguments were all his fault. If philosophers like Hume hadn't gone and given religious doctrines a hotfoot, apologists would have never been motivated to come back with all their dodgy and obfuscating arguments.

Malchus said: but IBIG does not even understand that he doesn't understand. The adults are talking, yet he seems incapable of understanding what is being said. Fascinating.

Scott F said:

Malchus said: but IBIG does not even understand that he doesn't understand. The adults are talking, yet he seems incapable of understanding what is being said. Fascinating.

Couldn't agree more.

However, Mike or anyone else has the perfect right to speculate about the mental state of others. He hasn’t mentioned any specific psychiatric diagnoses, but has every right to.

FL said:

However, Mike or anyone else has the perfect right to speculate about the mental state of others. He hasn’t mentioned any specific psychiatric diagnoses, but has every right to.

Gonna make for one heck of a two-way street, wouldn't you agree? FL

I'm getting kind of bored by this discussion. The whole original "software" analogy was a poor one to begin with. It ought to have been dropped six pages ago. Why let yourself get suckered by IBIG into the whole mess of pilpul flowing from it?

I own my company, so I post here on my own time, on my own computer, on my own computer network, over by own internet connection. Now how many here work for someone else, whether it be for a company, government, school district, university, etc... and are posting here on someone else's computer, network, internet connection, and worse yet on time they are getting paid for?

John_S said: I'm getting kind of bored by this discussion. The whole original "software" analogy was a poor one to begin with. It ought to have been dropped six pages ago. Why let yourself get suckered by IBIG into the whole mess of pilpul flowing from it?

SWT said:

Stanton said:

Glen Davidson said: What have the IDiots ever done, except take others work and say "God did it"?

Don't forget about getting local school boards in trouble and attempting to destroy science as we know it. You mean besides encouraging people to give them money, and sabotage actual science by both propaganda and getting political cronies to make it easier to teach non-science in place of actual science in schools?

Mike Elzinga said: It has always been the case that ID/creationist leaders and followers alike are unable to articulate scientific concepts. One can be relatively certain that the leaders know they are deliberately misleading; they have been informed of this since the 1970s.

Mike Elzinga said:

John_S said: I'm getting kind of bored by this discussion. The whole original "software" analogy was a poor one to begin with. It ought to have been dropped six pages ago. Why let yourself get suckered by IBIG into the whole mess of pilpul flowing from it?

Well, the analogy was both subtle and profound. Those not having had experience with software development might not get it. But the deeper point about that analogy is that software evolution behaves much like biological evolution despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved. And this further emphasizes that biological evolution happens as it does despite the fact that regular physical laws are involved. But there is more going on here with these trolls than just the inability to grasp analogies and metaphors. Ever since creation “science” got formally organized back in the 1970s, there has been a stream of misinformation and mischaracterization coming from that community. It has always been the case that ID/creationist leaders and followers alike are unable to articulate scientific concepts. One can be relatively certain that the leaders know they are deliberately misleading; they have been informed of this since the 1970s. But what we see these leaders exploiting is something that many people miss; and that is the evidence of arrested cognitive development that is seen regularly in fundamentalist circles. Not understanding the problem leads to its being addressed ineffectively.

Mike Elzinga said: John_S said: But the deeper point about that analogy is that software evolution behaves much like biological evolution despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved.

Marilyn the clueless IDiot Borg drone babbled: After reading “Signature in the Cell” I was enlightened to the history and the amount of research that has gone into how DNA works. It is not such a simple structure; there are lots to take into consideration, we are very privileged to know how DNA works. The finished out come of a cell is solid. Once defined it doesn’t change i.e. if you are a Zebra you don’t change into an Elephant. That in it’s self says a lot. Unless you are at Hogwarts. If your mum and dad is a Hamster then you are a Hamster if your mum and dad is an Antelope you are an Antelope if your dad is a Horse and your mum a Donkey then you will be a Mule and expect to have no prodigy, but be within the species. If some amazing special child who looked different and had markings and came about from a union of two people that child would be of the same species but prove that DNA has more to it and more potential that meets the eye. The substances that we are made of can determine what we become. We are made of and limited by the allowed environment on this planet. Earth allows flesh and blood to survive on this planet and whatever species we are no living thing is made of any substance not found on Earth if it was that would prove it had come from out there. R2D2 would agree. Jesus said he was not of this world yet he was the same species as we are. And no he wasn’t Borg or Klingon, Mr. Kwok.

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional IDiot mendicant drooled:

Mike Elzinga said:

John_S said: I'm getting kind of bored by this discussion. The whole original "software" analogy was a poor one to begin with. It ought to have been dropped six pages ago. Why let yourself get suckered by IBIG into the whole mess of pilpul flowing from it?

Well, the analogy was both subtle and profound. Those not having had experience with software development might not get it. But the deeper point about that analogy is that software evolution behaves much like biological evolution despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved. And this further emphasizes that biological evolution happens as it does despite the fact that regular physical laws are involved. But there is more going on here with these trolls than just the inability to grasp analogies and metaphors. Ever since creation “science” got formally organized back in the 1970s, there has been a stream of misinformation and mischaracterization coming from that community. It has always been the case that ID/creationist leaders and followers alike are unable to articulate scientific concepts. One can be relatively certain that the leaders know they are deliberately misleading; they have been informed of this since the 1970s. But what we see these leaders exploiting is something that many people miss; and that is the evidence of arrested cognitive development that is seen regularly in fundamentalist circles. Not understanding the problem leads to its being addressed ineffectively.

Just digging a deeper hole are you? You just don't get it do you? Software evolution is not at all comparable to biological evolution from a common ancestor, unless you want to admit that all life came from created kinds that have changed over time, by the hand of an intelligent designer. The stupidity of the software analogy, is that software design requires intelligence, the very point that you are arguing against on this site. The stupidity of the software analogy, also is that software is designed with a purpose from the very beginning, whether it be Microsoft Word designed for the purpose of writing books, letters, etc... or Photoshop designed for the purpose of enhancing photographs, or Quickbooks designed for the purpose of bookkeeping for small to medium sized companies. When are you going to stop your silly charade that I am mentally ill, and admit that it was a stupid analogy, or better yet admit that intelligence was required to create life.

Mike Elzinga said: Well, the analogy was both subtle and profound. Those not having had experience with software development might not get it.

But the deeper point about that analogy is that software evolution behaves much like biological evolution despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved. And this further emphasizes that biological evolution happens as it does despite the fact that regular physical laws are involved.

I should note that one reason the activities of the Designer (clearly God) are considered by Meyer to be properly extrapolated from human activity is evidently that Meyer simply considers mind and material to be separate phenomena (p. 393). If our magical immaterial minds can do things, why won't science consider that a magical immaterial mind that we don't know might have made life? Meyer claims that there is "no free lunch," then turns around and invokes the "free lunch" from the Designer--yet to him this makes sense, because he writes as though "mind" has none of the constraints that science uses (which is another reason his ideas are not at all science, but from the realm of religion). By contrast, all of the evidence that we have is that "mind" is simply the result of the activity of a brain that is "material" and that is also the result of evolution. Neuroscience is another part of science that IDCreationists like Meyer deny, and even need to deny for the sake of their "design" assumptions.

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said: John_S said: But the deeper point about that analogy is that software evolution behaves much like biological evolution despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved.

Very funny...despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved:) PRICELESS!!!

Mike Elzinga said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said: John_S said: But the deeper point about that analogy is that software evolution behaves much like biological evolution despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved.

Very funny...despite the fact that intelligent beings are involved:) PRICELESS!!!

I was waiting for this response because I intended to use this precise response to illustrate not only the inability to understand analogies, but to illustrate that there is no comprehension of the underlying concepts in science; particularly the regularity of the physical laws and how that leads to increasing complexity and unpredictability. I chose the word “despite” carefully because of ID/creationist misunderstanding of the emergence of irregularity and complexity from the regularity of physical laws. The frequent example of crystalline order emerging as a result of the laws of thermodynamics is immediately pooh-poohed by creationists because the regularity of crystals they say is the result of the “laws of crystals” (they don’t say what that means), but regular laws of physics can never explain complex living organisms. That is wrong. The regularity of physical laws does not allow us to predict the rapidly emerging secondary, tertiary and higher order effects as matter becomes more complex. The complex interactions of regular laws governing the various parts of complex systems produce all the complicated emergent phenomena we see in nature. This is well-known and is the focus of much of ongoing research in condensed matter physics, in chemistry, and in the studies of complex systems of many types; including the financial market place. Computer programs follow from a relatively small set of “regular laws or rules.” But as programs become more complex, interactions among subroutines, among other programs, and among the users of such programs become so complex that the underlying regularity of the rules for programs can no longer be used as a guide to how these complex programs will continue to emerge in a complex user environment. Computer software is not the only analogy that can be used. There are hundreds of others. But the point that should be obvious to all adults who have not lost contact with the real world is that examples and analogies to biological evolution can be found in hundreds of complex systems. These can be used as analogies to anyone who can understand and make use of analogies to bootstrap their understanding into even more complex situations. People like IBIG and the other trolls we find here are simply not capable of making use of such analogies and metaphors. The have no remaining tools for bootstrapping their learning. They must rely on authority. And that may be irreversible.

John Kwok said: You are of course in error IBelieveInLucifer in assuming that there is some Divine Hand of Providence at work with regards to Nature. As I have stated earlier, Design can be viewed as an emergent process from lower level ones like the interplay of random mutation and Natural Selection acting on the population in question, not because Yahweh, Shiva, Baal, Zeus or Odin decreed that it would be so.

Mike Elzinga said: I was waiting for this response because I intended to use this precise response to illustrate not only the inability to understand analogies, but to illustrate that there is no comprehension of the underlying concepts in science; particularly the regularity of the physical laws and how that leads to increasing complexity and unpredictability.

Scott F said:

John Kwok said: You are of course in error IBelieveInLucifer in assuming that there is some Divine Hand of Providence at work with regards to Nature. As I have stated earlier, Design can be viewed as an emergent process from lower level ones like the interplay of random mutation and Natural Selection acting on the population in question, not because Yahweh, Shiva, Baal, Zeus or Odin decreed that it would be so.

Hi John, While I don't disagree with your assessment, I think the stronger point is that it doesn't even matter if the creationist is wrong or not. (In a mechanistic sense, that is. Obviously it matters politically, but that's not the current discussion.) Whether the creationist is right or wrong, such an argument is a god-of-the-gaps argument. Even if some Divine Hand of Providence were subtly bending the process whereby a cell makes proteins, even if the nucleus were intelligently deciding what proteins to make, the cell is still subject to the laws and vagaries of evolutionary processes, and the aggregate result would be indistinguishable from the arbitrariness we actually see in evolution. (Using "arbitrariness" in this context, in preference to "randomness", since the evolutionary process is not random, but it is arbitrary. Perhaps there's a better term than "arbitrary", but it conveys to me a lack of obvious purpose, while allowing for a certain regularity of process.)

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: It has always been the case that ID/creationist leaders and followers alike are unable to articulate scientific concepts. One can be relatively certain that the leaders know they are deliberately misleading; they have been informed of this since the 1970s.

I would say those two concepts don't fit together. The first is certainly true ... but they can't articulate them because they don't care about them except to the extent that it serves their purposes. It's just a mishmosh to them, they pick whatever they need out of the mishmosh, and if it's self-contradictory -- so what? It's just a mishmosh. They believe every word they say, because their mindset is so corrupted that they can't tell fact from fiction, or better said they don't see any reason to do so.

Scott F said: Okay, maybe I was trying to be too subtle. I was anticipating such a response as well.

FL said:

However, Mike or anyone else has the perfect right to speculate about the mental state of others. He hasn’t mentioned any specific psychiatric diagnoses, but has every right to.

Gonna make for one heck of a two-way street, wouldn't you agree? FL

However, inevitably they will turn right around and reuse the stuff after what they seem to think is a suitable lapse of time for people to forget.

mrg said:

Scott F said: Okay, maybe I was trying to be too subtle. I was anticipating such a response as well.

Yeah. Any sort of positive comparison between evolution of technologies and evolution of organisms is basically creationistic. I've used it on occasion, but unfortunately it's a basic element of creationist thinking and they instinctively turn it to their advantage.

IBelieveInLucifer the malicious malingering IDiot mendicant decreed: Just keep digging deeper and deeper and deeper:) Attempting to justify a stupid analogy is just plain stupid on your part. You can't remove the intelligence from software evolution, without intelligence we wouldn't have software. If you are arguing against intelligent design, then why would you defend an analogy clearly compares biological evolution to intelligent design? But, do what you want and keep digging deeper, I think it is wonderful for those visitors who come to this site.

mrg said:

Scott F said: Okay, maybe I was trying to be too subtle. I was anticipating such a response as well.

Yeah. Any sort of positive comparison between evolution of technologies and evolution of organisms is basically creationistic. I've used it on occasion, but unfortunately it's a basic element of creationist thinking and they instinctively turn it to their advantage.

mrg said: Like Lisle proclaiming his "fundy logic" as superior to "secular logic".

Scott F said: I'm beginning to wonder if sticking with the evolution of language or the evolution of human culture might be a more successful strategy.

Scott F said:

mrg said:

Scott F said: Okay, maybe I was trying to be too subtle. I was anticipating such a response as well.

Yeah. Any sort of positive comparison between evolution of technologies and evolution of organisms is basically creationistic. I've used it on occasion, but unfortunately it's a basic element of creationist thinking and they instinctively turn it to their advantage.

I'm beginning to wonder if sticking with the evolution of language or the evolution of human culture might be a more successful strategy. While only intelligent humans have language, what person in their right mind would argue that the French language (or the English language, for that matter) was intelligently designed? For a human culture example, I would imagine that most people would agree that War is a "bad thing", from the perspective of both the individuals and the human race as a whole. Yet otherwise "intelligent" humans appear to engage in War on a regular basis. Certainly, no person in their right mind would argue that "War" was intelligently designed by humans as a desirable human activity.

Scott F said: I'm beginning to wonder if sticking with the evolution of language or the evolution of human culture might be a more successful strategy.

Every example of evolution of anything mechanical, electronic, automotive, aeronautical, etc... have the same common denominator, human ingenuity and human intelligence. You can never win attempting to use any of these as an analogy for biological evolution by common descent. But, again if you will just admit that God created the different kinds of life designed with the ability to change, and adapt as to survive environmental changes. Creationists don't dispute that change (microevolution) takes place in the different kinds of created life. What we dispute is that all life arose from non-living matter, and that all life descended from that original life. Now if you want to continue the software analogy, then you would have to accept that all software is designed for a purpose, or that there were many KINDS of software designed by intelligence, and that the various KINDS of software have evolved through the years, sounds a lot like creationism then:):):)

CHECKMATE!!!

Mike Elzinga said: It goes back to fundamental cognitive development. If it hasn’t happened by a certain stage of brain development, it is extremely unlikely that it can be developed to the extent necessary for it to serve as a bootstrapping device for further learning.

IBelieveInGod said: CHECKMATE!!!

IBelieveInLucifer the Malingering Malicious Delusional IDiot Mendicant babbled: Every example of evolution of anything mechanical, electronic, automotive, aeronautical, etc... have the same common denominator, human ingenuity and human intelligence. You can never win attempting to use any of these as an analogy for biological evolution by common descent. But, again if you will just admit that God created the different kinds of life designed with the ability to change, and adapt as to survive environmental changes. Creationists don't dispute that change (microevolution) takes place in the different kinds of created life. What we dispute is that all life arose from non-living matter, and that all life descended from that original life. Now if you want to continue the software analogy, then you would have to accept that all software is designed for a purpose, or that there were many KINDS of software designed by intelligence, and that the various KINDS of software have evolved through the years, sounds a lot like creationism then:):):) CHECKMATE!!!

Scott F said:

Malchus said: but IBIG does not even understand that he doesn't understand. The adults are talking, yet he seems incapable of understanding what is being said. Fascinating.

Couldn't agree more.

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said:

Malchus said: but IBIG does not even understand that he doesn't understand. The adults are talking, yet he seems incapable of understanding what is being said. Fascinating.

Couldn't agree more.

It’s like the little kid happily playing and babbling in the corner and occasionally burbling some of the sounds of the adult conversation going on around it.

Scott F said: Hi John, While I don't disagree with your assessment, I think the stronger point is that it doesn't even matter if the creationist is wrong or not. (In a mechanistic sense, that is. Obviously it matters politically, but that's not the current discussion.) Whether the creationist is right or wrong, such an argument is a god-of-the-gaps argument. Even if some Divine Hand of Providence were subtly bending the process whereby a cell makes proteins, even if the nucleus were intelligently deciding what proteins to make, the cell is still subject to the laws and vagaries of evolutionary processes, and the aggregate result would be indistinguishable from the arbitrariness we actually see in evolution. (Using "arbitrariness" in this context, in preference to "randomness", since the evolutionary process is not random, but it is arbitrary. Perhaps there's a better term than "arbitrary", but it conveys to me a lack of obvious purpose, while allowing for a certain regularity of process.)

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said:

Malchus said: but IBIG does not even understand that he doesn't understand. The adults are talking, yet he seems incapable of understanding what is being said. Fascinating.

Couldn't agree more.

It’s like the little kid happily playing and babbling in the corner and occasionally burbling some of the sounds of the adult conversation going on around it.

He's more like the kid who leaps onto the dinner table and throws a temper tantrum because he can not be the center of attention 25 hours a day, 9 days a week.

John Kwok said: As an aside, I understand that cladistics has been used successfully in studying the "evolution" of languages. So your observation with regards to referring to language "evolution" is one most apt here. We could, for the sake of argument, trace the "evolutionary" history of major Indo-European languages like the Germanic language family.

SWT said:

John Kwok said: As an aside, I understand that cladistics has been used successfully in studying the "evolution" of languages. So your observation with regards to referring to language "evolution" is one most apt here. We could, for the sake of argument, trace the "evolutionary" history of major Indo-European languages like the Germanic language family.

I'm curious about your use of scare quotes here. All the evidence I know of indicates that modern languages did evolve (as opposed to being divinely created as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest).

John Kwok said:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: As an aside, I understand that cladistics has been used successfully in studying the "evolution" of languages. So your observation with regards to referring to language "evolution" is one most apt here. We could, for the sake of argument, trace the "evolutionary" history of major Indo-European languages like the Germanic language family.

I'm curious about your use of scare quotes here. All the evidence I know of indicates that modern languages did evolve (as opposed to being divinely created as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest).

It's not "scare quotes" SWT. I am trying to make a distinction between true biological evolution and linguistic evolution, especially when there are notable instances of "hybridization" (Think of modern English, which owes much of his grammatical structure to Germanic languages, but also a great part of its vocabulary to those derived from Latin, primarily French.). So I think you are reading too much into my comment.

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Malingering Malicious Delusional IDiot Mendicant babbled: Every example of evolution of anything mechanical, electronic, automotive, aeronautical, etc... have the same common denominator, human ingenuity and human intelligence. You can never win attempting to use any of these as an analogy for biological evolution by common descent. But, again if you will just admit that God created the different kinds of life designed with the ability to change, and adapt as to survive environmental changes. Creationists don't dispute that change (microevolution) takes place in the different kinds of created life. What we dispute is that all life arose from non-living matter, and that all life descended from that original life. Now if you want to continue the software analogy, then you would have to accept that all software is designed for a purpose, or that there were many KINDS of software designed by intelligence, and that the various KINDS of software have evolved through the years, sounds a lot like creationism then:):):) CHECKMATE!!!

No theory of biological evolution can or should say anything about the origin of life on Planet Earth. That is an issue SEPARATE from explaining the processes responsible for the history, current complexity and composition of Planet Earth's biodiversity. That is an issue that is best dealt with via organic chemistry, not with such sciences as paleobiology, evolutionary developmental biology, systematic biology, ecology and population genetics; all of which offer important scientific data that sheds light on how best we need to study the very processes responsible for Planet Earth's biodiversity and how it has changed over vast intervals of geological time. This is FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME FLAW which every "scientific creationist" cretin, whether it is Bill Dembski or Stephen Meyer or Henry Morris or Duane Gish has been afflicted with, without any prior realization on their part. Yours is an EPIC FAIL IBelieveInLucifer: CHECKMATE!!! QAP'LA!!!!!

IBIG,

Are you ethical and loving like your inerrant-bible-god?

Hypothesis: The inerrant-bible-god is ethical.

Falsified: : Exodus 21:7-11 "And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,..."

Hypothesis: The inerrant-bible-god is unconditionally loving.

Falsified: Ezekiel 9:5-6 'As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,..." '

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malingering Malicious Mendicant Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone drooled:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Malingering Malicious Delusional IDiot Mendicant babbled: Every example of evolution of anything mechanical, electronic, automotive, aeronautical, etc... have the same common denominator, human ingenuity and human intelligence. You can never win attempting to use any of these as an analogy for biological evolution by common descent. But, again if you will just admit that God created the different kinds of life designed with the ability to change, and adapt as to survive environmental changes. Creationists don't dispute that change (microevolution) takes place in the different kinds of created life. What we dispute is that all life arose from non-living matter, and that all life descended from that original life. Now if you want to continue the software analogy, then you would have to accept that all software is designed for a purpose, or that there were many KINDS of software designed by intelligence, and that the various KINDS of software have evolved through the years, sounds a lot like creationism then:):):) CHECKMATE!!!

No theory of biological evolution can or should say anything about the origin of life on Planet Earth. That is an issue SEPARATE from explaining the processes responsible for the history, current complexity and composition of Planet Earth's biodiversity. That is an issue that is best dealt with via organic chemistry, not with such sciences as paleobiology, evolutionary developmental biology, systematic biology, ecology and population genetics; all of which offer important scientific data that sheds light on how best we need to study the very processes responsible for Planet Earth's biodiversity and how it has changed over vast intervals of geological time. This is FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME FLAW which every "scientific creationist" cretin, whether it is Bill Dembski or Stephen Meyer or Henry Morris or Duane Gish has been afflicted with, without any prior realization on their part. Yours is an EPIC FAIL IBelieveInLucifer: CHECKMATE!!! QAP'LA!!!!!

No you are wrong, if you are to claim that intelligence contributed no part in life here on earth, then it is just a important to explain how life arose from non-living matter as is the claim that all life descended from a common ancestor through evolution. Clearly you don't want to discuss Abiogenesis because it is a problem, but that said I don't want to rehash about it, just want to get to the crux of the matter. Anyway you look at it, you can't eliminate intelligence, every analogy that you would use would include intelligence, there is no way to get around the fact that all purposeful information increase comes from intelligence, whether it be a new or updated software program, newly update computer system, or any other thing you would attempt you use in your metaphor for evolution. It appears that there now is an attempt to give up on this inane analogy and move on to language, but I will deal with that tomorrow. You people are really running out of analogies and metaphors. That last bastion of your beloved GOD!!!

IBelieveInGod said:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Malingering Malicious Delusional IDiot Mendicant babbled: Every example of evolution of anything mechanical, electronic, automotive, aeronautical, etc... have the same common denominator, human ingenuity and human intelligence. You can never win attempting to use any of these as an analogy for biological evolution by common descent. But, again if you will just admit that God created the different kinds of life designed with the ability to change, and adapt as to survive environmental changes. Creationists don't dispute that change (microevolution) takes place in the different kinds of created life. What we dispute is that all life arose from non-living matter, and that all life descended from that original life. Now if you want to continue the software analogy, then you would have to accept that all software is designed for a purpose, or that there were many KINDS of software designed by intelligence, and that the various KINDS of software have evolved through the years, sounds a lot like creationism then:):):) CHECKMATE!!!

No theory of biological evolution can or should say anything about the origin of life on Planet Earth. That is an issue SEPARATE from explaining the processes responsible for the history, current complexity and composition of Planet Earth's biodiversity. That is an issue that is best dealt with via organic chemistry, not with such sciences as paleobiology, evolutionary developmental biology, systematic biology, ecology and population genetics; all of which offer important scientific data that sheds light on how best we need to study the very processes responsible for Planet Earth's biodiversity and how it has changed over vast intervals of geological time. This is FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME FLAW which every "scientific creationist" cretin, whether it is Bill Dembski or Stephen Meyer or Henry Morris or Duane Gish has been afflicted with, without any prior realization on their part. Yours is an EPIC FAIL IBelieveInLucifer: CHECKMATE!!! QAP'LA!!!!!

No you are wrong, if you are to claim that intelligence contributed no part in life here on earth, then it is just a important to explain how life arose from non-living matter as is the claim that all life descended from a common ancestor through evolution. Clearly you don't want to discuss Abiogenesis because it is a problem, but that said I don't want to rehash about it, just want to get to the crux of the matter. Anyway you look at it, you can't eliminate intelligence, every analogy that you would use would include intelligence, there is no way to get around the fact that all purposeful information increase comes from intelligence, whether it be a new or updated software program, newly update computer system, or any other thing you would attempt you use in your metaphor for evolution. It appears that there now is an attempt to give up on this inane analogy and move on to language, but I will deal with that tomorrow. You people are really running out of analogies and metaphors. That last bastion of your beloved GOD!!!

I mean, honestly, anyone who proclaims that Evolution is a god, even sarcastically, is a babbling idiot.

(Using “arbitrariness” in this context, in preference to “randomness”, since the evolutionary process is not random, but it is arbitrary. Perhaps there’s a better term than “arbitrary”, but it conveys to me a lack of obvious purpose, while allowing for a certain regularity of process.)

IBelieveInGod said: CHECKMATE!!!

Oclarki said:

IBelieveInGod said: CHECKMATE!!!

Too bad we are not actually playing chess. The bottom line is that the theory of evolution is the best, most robust natural explanation for the observed spatial and temporal distribution of life on earth. If you really want to "disprove" that theory, you need to provide a better natural explanation. So far, you have quite failed to do so. So let's go back to a question that you seem to be reluctant to answer: why are there no fossils of modern organisms in Cambrian sediments? Answer that question and we may have something to discuss. But without an answer to that question, you have nothing.

That is wrong. The regularity of physical laws does not allow us to predict the rapidly emerging secondary, tertiary and higher order effects as matter becomes more complex. The complex interactions of regular laws governing the various parts of complex systems produce all the complicated emergent phenomena we see in nature. This is well-known and is the focus of much of ongoing research in condensed matter physics, in chemistry, and in the studies of complex systems of many types; including the financial market place.

Yeah. Any sort of positive comparison between evolution of technologies and evolution of organisms is basically creationistic. I’ve used it on occasion, but unfortunately it’s a basic element of creationist thinking and they instinctively turn it to their advantage.

Ah, but FL, ATP is merely one little piece in even the simplest organism. An organism is vastly more elaborate than the biochemistry of ATP.

And so, would you not agree, an entire organism is much more "extreme engineering" than the ATP molecule?

We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life?

What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful.

At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

Henry J said:

(Using “arbitrariness” in this context, in preference to “randomness”, since the evolutionary process is not random, but it is arbitrary. Perhaps there’s a better term than “arbitrary”, but it conveys to me a lack of obvious purpose, while allowing for a certain regularity of process.)

How about "contingent"? Henry J

FL said: Especially that astonishing, brilliantly-designed rotary nanomotor that keeps you and I alive every day--the intricate and amazing ATP molecule.

Evolution can't account for THIS gig;

FL the psychotic malingering malicious mendicant Xian drooled:

Yeah. Any sort of positive comparison between evolution of technologies and evolution of organisms is basically creationistic. I’ve used it on occasion, but unfortunately it’s a basic element of creationist thinking and they instinctively turn it to their advantage.

Especially that astonishing, brilliantly-designed rotary nanomotor that keeps you and I alive every day--the intricate and amazing ATP molecule. Evolution? Flush that crap straight to H***. Evolution can't account for THIS gig; evolution can't put a one of 'em together from undirected naturalistic scratch. This is strictly Extreme Engineering ALL The Way, Baby!! http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp FL

Rolf Aalberg said: We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life? What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful. At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (New International Version, ©2011) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone pontificated:

Rolf Aalberg said: We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life? What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful. At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

Think about what you just posted, I could be very profound for you! Information can only come from intelligence. Now about the intelligent designer, God always was and nothing that is would be without Him. You are attempting to apply your extremely limited knowledge to explain how a Eternal Being who possesses all knowledge couldn't have had all knowledge.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (New International Version, ©2011) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

Mike Elzinga said: I’m afraid that the conclusion would have to be that any analogy or metaphor is not going to work.

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: As an aside, I understand that cladistics has been used successfully in studying the "evolution" of languages. So your observation with regards to referring to language "evolution" is one most apt here. We could, for the sake of argument, trace the "evolutionary" history of major Indo-European languages like the Germanic language family.

I'm curious about your use of scare quotes here. All the evidence I know of indicates that modern languages did evolve (as opposed to being divinely created as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest).

It's not "scare quotes" SWT. I am trying to make a distinction between true biological evolution and linguistic evolution, especially when there are notable instances of "hybridization" (Think of modern English, which owes much of his grammatical structure to Germanic languages, but also a great part of its vocabulary to those derived from Latin, primarily French.). So I think you are reading too much into my comment.

We also have too the real life example of Swahili as a language that was created as a "lingua franca" for traders in East Africa taking on a secondary role as a language widely used thoughout that reason. So while one can make some broad analogies between biological and linguistic evolution, it should also be recognized that such analogies are not nearly as precise and concise as one might wish.

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone pontificated:

Rolf Aalberg said: We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life? What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful. At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

Think about what you just posted, I could be very profound for you! Information can only come from intelligence. Now about the intelligent designer, God always was and nothing that is would be without Him. You are attempting to apply your extremely limited knowledge to explain how a Eternal Being who possesses all knowledge couldn't have had all knowledge.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (New International Version, ©2011) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

But how do you know that the Intelligent Designer was GOD? Why not Zeus, Odin, Rama, Shiva, a Mayan deity, a Klingon God or some other divine entity? What if these "intelligent" acts which you have been stressing are merely as much an example of instinctive behavior of the kind I stated last night with respect to spiders spinning webs?

Exodus 3:13-14 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

SWT said:

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: As an aside, I understand that cladistics has been used successfully in studying the "evolution" of languages. So your observation with regards to referring to language "evolution" is one most apt here. We could, for the sake of argument, trace the "evolutionary" history of major Indo-European languages like the Germanic language family.

I'm curious about your use of scare quotes here. All the evidence I know of indicates that modern languages did evolve (as opposed to being divinely created as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest).

It's not "scare quotes" SWT. I am trying to make a distinction between true biological evolution and linguistic evolution, especially when there are notable instances of "hybridization" (Think of modern English, which owes much of his grammatical structure to Germanic languages, but also a great part of its vocabulary to those derived from Latin, primarily French.). So I think you are reading too much into my comment.

We also have too the real life example of Swahili as a language that was created as a "lingua franca" for traders in East Africa taking on a secondary role as a language widely used thoughout that reason. So while one can make some broad analogies between biological and linguistic evolution, it should also be recognized that such analogies are not nearly as precise and concise as one might wish.

In the broadest of strokes, biological evolution and linguistic evolution are quite similar; they're both descent with modification. Mechanistically, of course, they're quite different since languages aren't passed from generation to generation through a set of genes. Even so, we see languages between isolated populations diverge through a process analogous to neutral drift with no intent to "design" a new language. For example, the simplification of the case structure and the abandonment of grammatical gender in English weren't because some committee decided to do so. I also seem to recall reading somewhere that there's evidence of a new case emerging in Russian; I'd provide a citation if I could. I wasn't aware that Swahili was a designed language -- would you happen to have a link to some information about that?

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone proclaimed:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone pontificated:

Rolf Aalberg said: We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life? What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful. At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

Think about what you just posted, I could be very profound for you! Information can only come from intelligence. Now about the intelligent designer, God always was and nothing that is would be without Him. You are attempting to apply your extremely limited knowledge to explain how a Eternal Being who possesses all knowledge couldn't have had all knowledge.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (New International Version, ©2011) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

But how do you know that the Intelligent Designer was GOD? Why not Zeus, Odin, Rama, Shiva, a Mayan deity, a Klingon God or some other divine entity? What if these "intelligent" acts which you have been stressing are merely as much an example of instinctive behavior of the kind I stated last night with respect to spiders spinning webs?

Now you are making the mistake of wanting to apply a name to God.

Exodus 3:13-14 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

So the answer is that God is "I AM WHO I AM".

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: I’m afraid that the conclusion would have to be that any analogy or metaphor is not going to work.

True. But, the language analogy has the advantage that everyone intuitively understands language already. There's less that has to be explained, fewer details to get lost in. It has the added advantage of multiple-generational time, as a step to deep time. Plus, as was pointed out, you avoid the problem of intermediaries: at every stage there was a functional language. Even the designed languages might be a useful tool, contrasting a designed thing with an evolved thing. Failure to understand analogies aside, I'm trying to come up with some more accessible way to get across the notion of emergent properties. Atoms and molecules are just too abstract for the below average Joe. Even using the capitalist market as a model doesn't work well. There are too many little but familiar examples of designed features that understanding can get derailed in. I'm imagining normal young teens, where the concepts are new, yet where familiar analogies are still accessible.

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone proclaimed:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone pontificated:

Rolf Aalberg said: We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life? What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful. At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

Think about what you just posted, I could be very profound for you! Information can only come from intelligence. Now about the intelligent designer, God always was and nothing that is would be without Him. You are attempting to apply your extremely limited knowledge to explain how a Eternal Being who possesses all knowledge couldn't have had all knowledge.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (New International Version, ©2011) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

But how do you know that the Intelligent Designer was GOD? Why not Zeus, Odin, Rama, Shiva, a Mayan deity, a Klingon God or some other divine entity? What if these "intelligent" acts which you have been stressing are merely as much an example of instinctive behavior of the kind I stated last night with respect to spiders spinning webs?

Now you are making the mistake of wanting to apply a name to God.

Exodus 3:13-14 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

So the answer is that God is "I AM WHO I AM".

You have just done what you have accused me of doing, hypocrite. By citing that passage from the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament, you are telling everyone that GOD, the Intelligent Designer, is none other than the Judeo-Christian GOD. You are so mentally-deficient and deranged that you can't realize that you yourself are guilty of the same act that you've accused me of.

John Kwok said: But how do you know that the Intelligent Designer was GOD? Why not Zeus, Odin, Rama, Shiva, a Mayan deity, a Klingon God or some other divine entity?

Right, the Popeye approach to god. Just peachy.

I warned you guys about responding to a mentally deficient ignoramus.

SWT said: In the broadest of strokes, biological evolution and linguistic evolution are quite similar; they're both descent with modification. Mechanistically, of course, they're quite different since languages aren't passed from generation to generation through a set of genes. Even so, we see languages between isolated populations diverge through a process analogous to neutral drift with no intent to "design" a new language. For example, the simplification of the case structure and the abandonment of grammatical gender in English weren't because some committee decided to do so.

SWT said: I wasn't aware that Swahili was a designed language -- would you happen to have a link to some information about that?

DS said: Right, the Popeye approach to god.

TomS said: No one designed the grammatical declensions and conjugations of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. However, there are people who don't seem to appreciate the fact that languages survive without "intelligent design". People who tell us if we don't follow the rules then our language will degenerate into mumbles.

TomS said:

SWT said: In the broadest of strokes, biological evolution and linguistic evolution are quite similar; they're both descent with modification. Mechanistically, of course, they're quite different since languages aren't passed from generation to generation through a set of genes. Even so, we see languages between isolated populations diverge through a process analogous to neutral drift with no intent to "design" a new language. For example, the simplification of the case structure and the abandonment of grammatical gender in English weren't because some committee decided to do so.

Agreed. No one designed the grammatical declensions and conjugations of Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. However, there are people who don't seem to appreciate the fact that languages survive without "intelligent design". People who tell us if we don't follow the rules then our language will degenerate into mumbles.

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone intoned:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone proclaimed:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone pontificated:

Rolf Aalberg said: We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life? What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful. At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

Think about what you just posted, I could be very profound for you! Information can only come from intelligence. Now about the intelligent designer, God always was and nothing that is would be without Him. You are attempting to apply your extremely limited knowledge to explain how a Eternal Being who possesses all knowledge couldn't have had all knowledge.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (New International Version, ©2011) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

But how do you know that the Intelligent Designer was GOD? Why not Zeus, Odin, Rama, Shiva, a Mayan deity, a Klingon God or some other divine entity? What if these "intelligent" acts which you have been stressing are merely as much an example of instinctive behavior of the kind I stated last night with respect to spiders spinning webs?

Now you are making the mistake of wanting to apply a name to God.

Exodus 3:13-14 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

So the answer is that God is "I AM WHO I AM".

You have just done what you have accused me of doing, hypocrite. By citing that passage from the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament, you are telling everyone that GOD, the Intelligent Designer, is none other than the Judeo-Christian GOD. You are so mentally-deficient and deranged that you can't realize that you yourself are guilty of the same act that you've accused me of.

No that is where you have it wrong, God is who He is. Man makes the mistake of creating an image of God whether it be physical or even in their mind, and although I believe that many people of other religions have, and are attempting to find the true and living God, the problem is that they turn the true and living God into a idol, rather then just worshipping Him, they create their own image of God, and I'm not referring to just a statue, but an image of God in their mind. When you turn God into an idol, then you cease to worship Him, you are then worshipping your image of God, and not God Himself. That is why God told Moses, "I am who I am".

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

John Kwok said: But how do you know that the Intelligent Designer was GOD? Why not Zeus, Odin, Rama, Shiva, a Mayan deity, a Klingon God or some other divine entity?

In all fairness, Zeus, Odin, and Shiva (and maybe Rama) aren't creators. But some of the Near Eastern gods, including, of course, Yahweh, are.

FL said:

Yeah. Any sort of positive comparison between evolution of technologies and evolution of organisms is basically creationistic. I’ve used it on occasion, but unfortunately it’s a basic element of creationist thinking and they instinctively turn it to their advantage.

Especially that astonishing, brilliantly-designed rotary nanomotor that keeps you and I alive every day--the intricate and amazing ATP molecule. Evolution? Flush that crap straight to H***. Evolution can't account for THIS gig; evolution can't put a one of 'em together from undirected naturalistic scratch. This is strictly Extreme Engineering ALL The Way, Baby!! http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp FL

the problem is that they turn the true and living God into a idol, rather then just worshipping Him, they create their own image of God, and I’m not referring to just a statue, but an image of God in their mind. When you turn God into an idol, then you cease to worship Him, you are then worshipping your image of God, and not God Himself.

Stanton said:

FL said:

Yeah. Any sort of positive comparison between evolution of technologies and evolution of organisms is basically creationistic. I’ve used it on occasion, but unfortunately it’s a basic element of creationist thinking and they instinctively turn it to their advantage.

Especially that astonishing, brilliantly-designed rotary nanomotor that keeps you and I alive every day--the intricate and amazing ATP molecule. Evolution? Flush that crap straight to H***. Evolution can't account for THIS gig; evolution can't put a one of 'em together from undirected naturalistic scratch. This is strictly Extreme Engineering ALL The Way, Baby!! http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp FL

So where in the Bible does it state that God magically poofed this together? And where in the Bible does it state that this must be taught in place of science in science classrooms? And where is the evidence that shows God magically poofing this together?

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: As an aside, I understand that cladistics has been used successfully in studying the "evolution" of languages. So your observation with regards to referring to language "evolution" is one most apt here. We could, for the sake of argument, trace the "evolutionary" history of major Indo-European languages like the Germanic language family.

I'm curious about your use of scare quotes here. All the evidence I know of indicates that modern languages did evolve (as opposed to being divinely created as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest).

It's not "scare quotes" SWT. I am trying to make a distinction between true biological evolution and linguistic evolution, especially when there are notable instances of "hybridization" (Think of modern English, which owes much of his grammatical structure to Germanic languages, but also a great part of its vocabulary to those derived from Latin, primarily French.). So I think you are reading too much into my comment.

We also have too the real life example of Swahili as a language that was created as a "lingua franca" for traders in East Africa taking on a secondary role as a language widely used thoughout that reason. So while one can make some broad analogies between biological and linguistic evolution, it should also be recognized that such analogies are not nearly as precise and concise as one might wish.

Mike -

I would only add that there are three possible internal states that can lead to the creationist behavior you describe.

1. As you say - 'He believes that learning and being educated is being able to cite authorities and quickly recite passages in his holy book from memory. He doesn’t have to understand anything the authorities say. He doesn’t have to articulate the processes by which his authorities arrived at their “knowledge.” He doesn’t even have to know if the authorities make sense.'

2. Or, alternately, agenda-driven behavior which renders "truth" irrelevant. To understand such behavior from our perspective, imagine a highly trained and loyal POW being questioned by an enemy intelligence officer. In this case, the POW's agenda - to give only misleading or incomplete information - vastly outweighs any ethical requirement to tell the "truth".

(In this simplified example the POW would be aware of being inaccurate, but in more complex situations, defense mechanisms usually allow the agenda-driven person to "believe themselves". Also, in this simple example, the enemy officer does have a similar and opposite agenda; in real life, the agenda driven liar usually, as a defense mechanism, projects a similar agenda onto his honest opponent, e.g. climate scientists who gain nothing from AGW and are actually deeply upset about it are said to be engaged in a "conspiracy" - of course, the real conspiracy is actually the complicity of the denialists and the media in pushing denial.)

People who consciously scheme and take conscious pride in deceiving exist, but it is far more common for biased, agenda-driven liars to preserve their self-image with defense mechanisms like denial and projection.

The agenda could be personal or political, and it could be conscious or unconscious. By no means do I suggest that there is a conscious awareness of scheming, defense mechanisms prevent that; however, the interaction with others is probably emotionally experienced as a pure agenda-driven conflict.

The following facts are well-documented - a) some creationists function at high academic levels, and even FL has sufficient language skills to read the Bible fluently and post online with ease and b) there is no evidence or logic that can ever sway creationists from their commitment.

When I see someone behaving this way, I perceive that a hidden agenda is at work.

When someone is telling me that a used car is in perfect condition, when I raise an obvious objective point that rebuts the claim, and when I see that someone use every possible distraction technique to avoid dealing with my point and mislead me, and then finally even choose a rage reaction rather than simply concede a civilly made objectively true point, I don't come to the conclusion that I'm dealing with a poor innocent soul who doesn't have the cognitive capacity to understand that a visible set of cracked and aging engine pipes argues against a car in perfect condition.

I come to the conclusion that the driving agenda was to sell me the car no matter what it takes, and also, if unsuccessful, not to concede my point, but to deny it and move on denying it to the next potential customer in line.

In fact, one of the salesman's defense mechanisms will likely be to project his own objective dishonesty (which he may be consciously unaware of) onto me, and convince himself that I was trying to under-pay for the car.

Again, there need be no conscious sensation of scheming and plotting, and there usually isn't. The desire to sell the car is usually internalized, and defenses prevent conscious acknowledgment of the flaws in the car, to the extent that cognitive dissonance expressed as rage will occur before simple concession of flaws. But if the underlying agenda wasn't there, none of the cognitive issues would be there either.

3. Since these two things are not mutually exclusive, the third possibility is that both are operative.

Indeed, I would say that the more academically gifted "big word" creationists are almost entirely agenda- and defense-mechanism-driven, whereas some of the "dumber" ones are lucky enough to genuinely not understand arguments against their position.

I must say, though, I think an agenda is always there. Cognitive deficiencies are revealed, but by the strategies in place to push the agenda.

Mike Elzinga said: This problem is over and above the inability to use analogies and metaphors for bootstrapping to more abstract levels of understanding.

harold said: I must say, though, I think an agenda is always there. Cognitive deficiencies are revealed, but by the strategies in place to push the agenda.

Henry J said:

the problem is that they turn the true and living God into a idol, rather then just worshipping Him, they create their own image of God, and I’m not referring to just a statue, but an image of God in their mind. When you turn God into an idol, then you cease to worship Him, you are then worshipping your image of God, and not God Himself.

If that's a problem, then stop doing it.

Airbowline said:

John Kwok said:

John Kwok said:

SWT said:

John Kwok said: As an aside, I understand that cladistics has been used successfully in studying the "evolution" of languages. So your observation with regards to referring to language "evolution" is one most apt here. We could, for the sake of argument, trace the "evolutionary" history of major Indo-European languages like the Germanic language family.

I'm curious about your use of scare quotes here. All the evidence I know of indicates that modern languages did evolve (as opposed to being divinely created as a literal reading of Genesis would suggest).

It's not "scare quotes" SWT. I am trying to make a distinction between true biological evolution and linguistic evolution, especially when there are notable instances of "hybridization" (Think of modern English, which owes much of his grammatical structure to Germanic languages, but also a great part of its vocabulary to those derived from Latin, primarily French.). So I think you are reading too much into my comment.

We also have too the real life example of Swahili as a language that was created as a "lingua franca" for traders in East Africa taking on a secondary role as a language widely used thoughout that reason. So while one can make some broad analogies between biological and linguistic evolution, it should also be recognized that such analogies are not nearly as precise and concise as one might wish.

An elegant example of this comes from two papers a couple of years ago; a linguistic analysis of Polynesian language origins that create a nested hierarchy rooted in Taiwan, and a genetic analysis of the Helicobacter pylorii from the mouths of Polynesians showing essentially the same nested hierarchy. I find this to be a very useful teaching tool, especially as the trees are rooted prior to 6,000 years ago, dispensing with some of the usual creationist objections. Gray et. al Science 323 476 2009 Moodley et al Science 323 529 2009 Air

Mike Elzinga said: In studying those videos over at AiG, and when looking at them from the point of view of what it does to cognitive development, the implications are quite disturbing to anyone who has been deeply involved in educating others and witnessing their blossoming intellectual development and success. These people over at AiG, ICR, and the DI aren’t just quaint and harmless; they are destroying the ability of people to function independently of “sanctified authority.” And they start with children who have no defenses whatsoever. The results are what we see in the trolls who show up here.

IBelieveInGod said:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone proclaimed:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the delusional malicious malingering mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone pontificated:

Rolf Aalberg said: We are having some success in reverse engineering of life, but how probable is it that anyone without previous knowledge about life would be able to design life? What can intelligence alone create? The fact is, even a computer with the capacity of all the world’s computers combined would be useless by itself. It is the ‘knowledge’ we put into it that makes it capable of doing anything meaningful. At what university was the intelligent designer trained? Oh, he was made that way. You know, it’s designers all the way down.

Think about what you just posted, I could be very profound for you! Information can only come from intelligence. Now about the intelligent designer, God always was and nothing that is would be without Him. You are attempting to apply your extremely limited knowledge to explain how a Eternal Being who possesses all knowledge couldn't have had all knowledge.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20 (New International Version, ©2011) 18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

But how do you know that the Intelligent Designer was GOD? Why not Zeus, Odin, Rama, Shiva, a Mayan deity, a Klingon God or some other divine entity? What if these "intelligent" acts which you have been stressing are merely as much an example of instinctive behavior of the kind I stated last night with respect to spiders spinning webs?

Now you are making the mistake of wanting to apply a name to God.

Exodus 3:13-14 13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

So the answer is that God is "I AM WHO I AM".

You have just done what you have accused me of doing, hypocrite. By citing that passage from the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament, you are telling everyone that GOD, the Intelligent Designer, is none other than the Judeo-Christian GOD. You are so mentally-deficient and deranged that you can't realize that you yourself are guilty of the same act that you've accused me of.

No that is where you have it wrong, God is who He is. Man makes the mistake of creating an image of God whether it be physical or even in their mind, and although I believe that many people of other religions have, and are attempting to find the true and living God, the problem is that they turn the true and living God into a idol, rather then just worshipping Him, they create their own image of God, and I'm not referring to just a statue, but an image of God in their mind. When you turn God into an idol, then you cease to worship Him, you are then worshipping your image of God, and not God Himself. That is why God told Moses, "I am who I am".

John Kwok said: There's actually a rather chilling account of Ken Ham telling eight year olds in New Jersey, of all places, to tell their teachers that evolution is evil that was published a few years ago in the Los Angeles Times. Don Prothero quoted from it in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters". When I read that article, it reminded me all too much of Nazi indoctrination. Of course when I made that observation online elsewhere, the creos strongly objected.

IBelieveInGod said: God told Moses, "I am who I am".

Malchus said: Though I don't usually bother to reply to your posts anymore, I felt that this time you made a solid point: You have set up an image of God in your own mind and become an idolater. I will pray for you.

Mike Elzinga said:

John Kwok said: There's actually a rather chilling account of Ken Ham telling eight year olds in New Jersey, of all places, to tell their teachers that evolution is evil that was published a few years ago in the Los Angeles Times. Don Prothero quoted from it in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters". When I read that article, it reminded me all too much of Nazi indoctrination. Of course when I made that observation online elsewhere, the creos strongly objected.

Same hardware? I don't think so.

Malchus said: Though I don't usually bother to reply to your posts anymore ...

John Kwok said: Just bear in mind Scott that the analogy is not nearly as concise or precise as we might wish, especially since - as I have noted to SWT - there are substantially more instances of cross-fertilization and hybridization in linguistic evolution than what we have seen in the Phanerozoic fossil (and Recent extant) record, especially amongst metazoans.

Scott F said:

John Kwok said: Just bear in mind Scott that the analogy is not nearly as concise or precise as we might wish, especially since - as I have noted to SWT - there are substantially more instances of cross-fertilization and hybridization in linguistic evolution than what we have seen in the Phanerozoic fossil (and Recent extant) record, especially amongst metazoans.

Hi John, I don't think that's the inherent limitation you think it is. The apparent branching and hybridization of our own family tree through the various species of "Homo..." suggests there may be much more cross-fertilization on the way to new species than one might expect. Also, if I understand correctly, the bacterial world quite easily shares genes laterally, so that shouldn't be an obstacle. I'll admit that the analogy isn't as precise one might wish. I'm not sure what a "concise" analogy is in this context. But it could be more "concise" in that it needs much less explanation. I'd be willing to sacrifice precision for an analogy that is more intuitively accessible. Again, everyone inherently understands what language is, and that some languages are more similar than others. Is that enough? Don't know. I'd have to try it out, and I'm reluctant to do that here. (Though where better? :-)

mrg said:

Malchus said: Though I don't usually bother to reply to your posts anymore ...

I would suggest that it would be an improvement in quality of life if you'd didn't bother reading them. I can attest to this. When I'm sitting there with the remote and I hit the Biggie Channel, I just go on to Sy-Fy or History Channel instead.

harold said: ... one of the creationists in this thread expresses belief in a weak, imperfect "designer". This isn't about Christianity. It's about a political ideology which denies science and seeks to violate the US constitution, versus everyone else.

Intelligent Designer the scientific illiterate babbled:

harold said: ... one of the creationists in this thread expresses belief in a weak, imperfect "designer". This isn't about Christianity. It's about a political ideology which denies science and seeks to violate the US constitution, versus everyone else.

I wouldn't necessarily use the words weak and imperfect also I did say that the designer(s) may be weak in my blog. It would be more accurate to say that I think God is not all knowing nor all powerful. Also I have no such political ideaology as you have described. I am very pro-science and consider the US constitution to be more inspired than any religious document.

I wouldn’t necessarily use the words weak and imperfect although I did say that the designer(s) may be weak in my blog.

Intelligent Designer said: I wouldn’t necessarily use the words weak and imperfect although I did say that the designer(s) may be weak in my blog.

If you are truly "pro-science" then you would accept as scientific fact, the well-established proof that exists for biological evolution. You don't, so why should believe anything you say?

Intelligent Designer said:

If you are truly "pro-science" then you would accept as scientific fact, the well-established proof that exists for biological evolution. You don't, so why should believe anything you say?

John, If you read my posts carefully you will notice that I neither confirm nor deny evolution. I am on the fence and lean toward evoltion. However, I lean toward an evolution driven by intelligent design, not random mutation and natural selection. I don't consider evolution and intelligent design to be mutually exclusive.

Intelligent Designer said: I lean toward an evolution driven by intelligent design, not random mutation and natural selection.

John Kwok said: So you are willing to concede that the designer(s) were Klingons?

The trouble with I.D. is that it doesn't explain anything, i.e., nobody has identified a consistently observed pattern(s) of observations that (1) would be a logical consequence of some variation of "some aspects of life were deliberately engineered", but (2) would be otherwise unexpected.

Henry J said: The trouble with I.D. is that it doesn't explain anything, i.e., nobody has identified a consistently observed pattern(s) of observations that (1) would be a logical consequence of some variation of "some aspects of life were deliberately engineered", but (2) would be otherwise unexpected.

mrg said: If the Designers are that capable, they could do the job all at once. It would seem that if they took their time, it would be simply to try to trick everyone into believing Darwin was right.

Intelligent Designer said: Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information.

mrg said:

Intelligent Designer said: Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information.

I would accept that as an explanation if there was any details on who did it, how they did it, when they did it ... little things like that. Since precisely none of those things are forthcoming, the explanation sounds indistinguishable from "it happened by magic."

Intelligent Designer said: Let's suppose that we had to look for a new planet to live on and we found one that would work. The first thing we would have to do is seed it with micro organisms. Right?

Intelligent Designer said:

Henry J said: The trouble with I.D. is that it doesn't explain anything, i.e., nobody has identified a consistently observed pattern(s) of observations that (1) would be a logical consequence of some variation of "some aspects of life were deliberately engineered", but (2) would be otherwise unexpected.

Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information. Randon mutation and natural selection does not.

Intelligent Designer the scientific illiterate babbled:

Henry J said: The trouble with I.D. is that it doesn't explain anything, i.e., nobody has identified a consistently observed pattern(s) of observations that (1) would be a logical consequence of some variation of "some aspects of life were deliberately engineered", but (2) would be otherwise unexpected.

Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information. Randon mutation and natural selection does not.

Intelligent Designer said: Consider the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

mrg said:

Intelligent Designer said: Let's suppose that we had to look for a new planet to live on and we found one that would work. The first thing we would have to do is seed it with micro organisms. Right?

Are we talking about panspermia -- which I can't rule out, though it's not a very attractive theory -- or the ongoing evolution of organisms?

No. I was talking about a hypothetical future exogenesis. The point I was making is that if God is not all knowing and all powerful it makes sence that God would start with the creation of bacteria or archaea.

Then how come you refuse to provide a definition for "information" at all, let alone define it in the context it's being used Intelligent Design? Then again, in Intelligent Design, "information" is used as a synonym for "magic"

Intelligent Designer said: I consider the question to be one of the standard talking points. It doesn't matter what definition I provide it will just be ridiculed.

Intelligent Designer said:

harold said: ... one of the creationists in this thread expresses belief in a weak, imperfect "designer". This isn't about Christianity. It's about a political ideology which denies science and seeks to violate the US constitution, versus everyone else.

I wouldn't necessarily use the words weak and imperfect also I did say that the designer(s) may be weak in my blog. It would be more accurate to say that I think God is not all knowing nor all powerful. Also I have no such political ideaology as you have described. I am very pro-science and consider the US constitution to be more inspired than any religious document.

Intelligent Designer said: I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

Intelligent Designer said:

Henry J said: The trouble with I.D. is that it doesn't explain anything, i.e., nobody has identified a consistently observed pattern(s) of observations that (1) would be a logical consequence of some variation of "some aspects of life were deliberately engineered", but (2) would be otherwise unexpected.

Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information. Randon mutation and natural selection does not.

Intelligent Designer said:

mrg said:

Intelligent Designer said: Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information.

I would accept that as an explanation if there was any details on who did it, how they did it, when they did it ... little things like that. Since precisely none of those things are forthcoming, the explanation sounds indistinguishable from "it happened by magic."

Consider the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

mrg said: Because that's what you expect and that's what you want.

Intelligent Designer said:

Then how come you refuse to provide a definition for "information" at all, let alone define it in the context it's being used Intelligent Design? Then again, in Intelligent Design, "information" is used as a synonym for "magic"

I consider the question to be one of the standard talking points. It doesn't matter what definition I provide it will just be ridiculed. As all of us here know there are many types of information. Some can be measured and some can't. I am not talking about indexical information like what you could deduce from the way a crystal is formed. Almost everything if not everything relates to some kind of indexical information. I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

Intelligent Designer -

Since you're back -

1) You've pretty much conceded that you don't know WHO the designer is, is it fair to say that? If not, who is the designer?

2) What precisely did the designer design, when did the designer design it, and how did the designer design it?

3) Is your problem with the evolution of life on earth, or with the origin of life on earth?

4) Can you describe the theory of evolution accurately, without errors or excessive oversimplification? If your beef is with the theory of evolution, can you make a coherent case that you have a better explanation for the diversity and relatedness of life on earth? By "relatedness" I do not mean to assume common descent a priori, but rather, to note that all organisms share highly similar biochemistry and that organisms can be seen to be more related or less related to other organisms in a "nested hierarchy" pattern, e.g. donkey-equines-placental herbivores-plancental mammals-mammals-vertebrates-animals-eukaryotes (taxonomists please forgive the simplifications), and so on.

5) Your blog contains a wrong statement about entropy; in your "What is God" entry, you state, in the second paragraph (I am paraphrasing, but if you act silly and object to my paraphrase because it isn't the exact literal quote, I can easily copy and paste the exact literal quote), that entropy is the tendency for things to become "disorganized" and that life is incompatible with entropy because it is "organized". This statement is completely wrong; entropy is not directly related to human-perceived spatial organization, and many non-life phenomenae are, by human standards, highly "organized" (arrangement of molecules in crystals, arrangement of planets in our solar system, regular appearance of lunar cycles from the perspective of earth observer, etc, etc, etc); this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Will you be removing this statement from your blog?

Intelligent Designer said: I would prefer a respectful response.

mrg said:

Intelligent Designer said: I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

So this is just a windy way of saying that DNA looks like a computer program. Sort of. And so there must be a computer programmer. We missing anything here? And the eye is like a camera, organisms are like a watch, and a pig is like a piggy bank.

Can you accept that I am talking about the type of information that specifies something?

Intelligent Designer said:

mrg said:

Intelligent Designer said: I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

So this is just a windy way of saying that DNA looks like a computer program. Sort of. And so there must be a computer programmer. We missing anything here? And the eye is like a camera, organisms are like a watch, and a pig is like a piggy bank.

DNA doesn't look like a computer program. I never said that or ment to imply that. A blueprint doesn't look anything like a computer program but it still specifies how something is to be made. I do support the idea that DNA is a program that specifies a complex chemical reaction, but I would never say that it is a computer program.

Intelligent Designer said: I do support the idea that DNA is a program that specifies a complex chemical reaction, but I would never say that it is a computer program.

Malchus said: Irrelevant, given the topic under discussion.

Intelligent Designer said:

mrg said:

Intelligent Designer said: Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information.

I would accept that as an explanation if there was any details on who did it, how they did it, when they did it ... little things like that. Since precisely none of those things are forthcoming, the explanation sounds indistinguishable from "it happened by magic."

Consider the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

Malchus said: Interesting. Given that, DNA has no information. At least we can start there.

Intelligent Designer said:

Then how come you refuse to provide a definition for "information" at all, let alone define it in the context it's being used Intelligent Design? Then again, in Intelligent Design, "information" is used as a synonym for "magic"

I consider the question to be one of the standard talking points. It doesn't matter what definition I provide it will just be ridiculed. As all of us here know there are many types of information. Some can be measured and some can't. I am not talking about indexical information like what you could deduce from the way a crystal is formed. Almost everything if not everything relates to some kind of indexical information. I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

Intelligent Designer said: Intelligent design explains the existence of DNA information. Randon mutation and natural selection does not.

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malicious Malingering Mendicant DI IDiot Borg drone drooled:

Malchus said: Interesting. Given that, DNA has no information. At least we can start there.

Intelligent Designer said:

Then how come you refuse to provide a definition for "information" at all, let alone define it in the context it's being used Intelligent Design? Then again, in Intelligent Design, "information" is used as a synonym for "magic"

I consider the question to be one of the standard talking points. It doesn't matter what definition I provide it will just be ridiculed. As all of us here know there are many types of information. Some can be measured and some can't. I am not talking about indexical information like what you could deduce from the way a crystal is formed. Almost everything if not everything relates to some kind of indexical information. I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

Is it a true statement to state that DNA has no information?

Mike Elzinga said: (2) There is not one bit of evidence in these assertions that he knows the meaning of “information” and how it is contained in DNA.

harold said: Intelligent Designer - Since you're back - 1) You've pretty much conceded that you don't know WHO the designer is, is it fair to say that? If not, who is the designer? 2) What precisely did the designer design, when did the designer design it, and how did the designer design it? 3) Is your problem with the evolution of life on earth, or with the origin of life on earth? 4) Can you describe the theory of evolution accurately, without errors or excessive oversimplification? If your beef is with the theory of evolution, can you make a coherent case that you have a better explanation for the diversity and relatedness of life on earth? By "relatedness" I do not mean to assume common descent a priori, but rather, to note that all organisms share highly similar biochemistry and that organisms can be seen to be more related or less related to other organisms in a "nested hierarchy" pattern, e.g. donkey-equines-placental herbivores-plancental mammals-mammals-vertebrates-animals-eukaryotes (taxonomists please forgive the simplifications), and so on. 5) Your blog contains a wrong statement about entropy; in your "What is God" entry, you state, in the second paragraph (I am paraphrasing, but if you act silly and object to my paraphrase because it isn't the exact literal quote, I can easily copy and paste the exact literal quote), that entropy is the tendency for things to become "disorganized" and that life is incompatible with entropy because it is "organized". This statement is completely wrong; entropy is not directly related to human-perceived spatial organization, and many non-life phenomenae are, by human standards, highly "organized" (arrangement of molecules in crystals, arrangement of planets in our solar system, regular appearance of lunar cycles from the perspective of earth observer, etc, etc, etc); this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Will you be removing this statement from your blog?

Intelligent Designer said: Here is my question. Do you agree with Malcus' statement that "DNA contains no [specified] information"?

harold said: I am a sincere, honest, curious person. I like to know what I am talking about. I CANNOT understand what you mean by information. You MUST define it so that we can both understand what you mean by it.

Malchus said: But DNA is not a program. You really should learn something about biology before you try to tackle subjects like this; your ignorance makes you prone to truly outrageous errors.

Intelligent Designer said:

mrg said:

Intelligent Designer said: I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

So this is just a windy way of saying that DNA looks like a computer program. Sort of. And so there must be a computer programmer. We missing anything here? And the eye is like a camera, organisms are like a watch, and a pig is like a piggy bank.

DNA doesn't look like a computer program. I never said that or ment to imply that. A blueprint doesn't look anything like a computer program but it still specifies how something is to be made. I do support the idea that DNA is a program that specifies a complex chemical reaction, but I would never say that it is a computer program.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: (2) There is not one bit of evidence in these assertions that he knows the meaning of “information” and how it is contained in DNA.

I would be the first to agree there is information in DNA. This is not news, it's called "heredity", it was known a long time before anyone knew DNA existed. The ID argument boils down to "living things have heredity and nonliving things don't, therefore Design." This is logically equivalent to saying "living things are alive and nonliving things aren't, therefore Design."

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malicious Malingering Mendicant DI IDiot Borg drone drooled:

Malchus said: Interesting. Given that, DNA has no information. At least we can start there.

Intelligent Designer said:

Then how come you refuse to provide a definition for "information" at all, let alone define it in the context it's being used Intelligent Design? Then again, in Intelligent Design, "information" is used as a synonym for "magic"

I consider the question to be one of the standard talking points. It doesn't matter what definition I provide it will just be ridiculed. As all of us here know there are many types of information. Some can be measured and some can't. I am not talking about indexical information like what you could deduce from the way a crystal is formed. Almost everything if not everything relates to some kind of indexical information. I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

Is it a true statement to state that DNA has no information?

DNA has no complex specified information dumbass.

Specified information is information that specifies how something is to be made. Does DNA have that kind of information?

Mike Elzinga said: The question that is on the table for ID is how this “information” appears in the system; and further, how does “information” guide atoms and molecules into position.

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how something is to be made. Does DNA have that kind of information?

Mike,

I agree with much of what you just said. However, I think it is important to distinguish the difference between indexical information (the information in any system of atoms ...) and specified information.

I am about to go have dinner with my wife. I will be back in 2 hours.

Intelligent Designer said: I will be back in 2 hours.

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how something is to be made. Does DNA have that kind of information?

Intelligent Designer said: Mike, I agree with much of what you just said. However, I think it is important to distinguish the difference between indexical information (the information in any system of atoms ...) and specified information.

Intelligent Designer the clueless scientific illiterate babbled: I don't have time to answer every question you all have. I can answer some of them and I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to answer some of mine. 1) I did not make that concession because I never claimed to know who or what God is. 2) I don't know. And you can't tell me how life started either. 3) My problem is with random mutation and natural selection being the cause of evolution. 4) I have read "Why Evolution Is True". I am not going to take the time to write one essay after another for you. 5) My statement isn't completely wrong. It is less than accurate. If you were to describe the theory of evolution in one sentence it would be less than accurate and more easily misconstrued. Here is my question. Do you agree with Malcus' statement that "DNA contains no [specified] information"?

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malicious Malingering Mendicant Xian Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone drooled:

John Kwok said:

IBelieveInLucifer the Ignorant Malicious Malingering Mendicant DI IDiot Borg drone drooled:

Malchus said: Interesting. Given that, DNA has no information. At least we can start there.

Intelligent Designer said:

Then how come you refuse to provide a definition for "information" at all, let alone define it in the context it's being used Intelligent Design? Then again, in Intelligent Design, "information" is used as a synonym for "magic"

I consider the question to be one of the standard talking points. It doesn't matter what definition I provide it will just be ridiculed. As all of us here know there are many types of information. Some can be measured and some can't. I am not talking about indexical information like what you could deduce from the way a crystal is formed. Almost everything if not everything relates to some kind of indexical information. I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

Is it a true statement to state that DNA has no information?

DNA has no complex specified information dumbass.

Watch your mouth! How do you know that DNA has no complex specified information?

I don’t have time to answer every question you all have. I can answer some of them and I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to answer some of mine.

1) I did not make that concession because I never claimed to know who or what God is.

2) I don’t know.

And you can’t tell me how life started either.

3) My problem is with random mutation and natural selection being the cause of evolution.

4) I have read “Why Evolution Is True”. I am not going to take the time to write one essay after another for you.

5) My statement isn’t completely wrong. It is less than accurate. If you were to describe the theory of evolution in one sentence it would be less than accurate and more easily misconstrued.

Here is my question. Do you agree with Malcus’ statement that “DNA contains no [specified] information”?

harold said: I certainly do, for the same reason that I agree that DNA contains no "weakly existential phlogystene". The term "specified information" means nothing to me; it is a made up term with no definition, used for propaganda purposes only.

mrg said: Now we are being given the statement: "Organisms have heredity that defines their organization and operation. We have learned that heredity is defined by DNA sequences. These sequences contain information." This third statement tells us absolutely nothing more than we knew before, and there's no honest reason to try to tell anyone that it does.

Mike Elzinga said: I have no idea what he means by “indexical” information and how that differs from “specified” information.

Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information.

Idexical information is information that can be derived by observation. For example, I can look at the rings of a tree and derive its age, vague information about the weather and when there may have been a forest fire. I can look at a shadow and drive the direction of a light source.

Shannon information relates to a message and has a sender and a reciever. In this sense DNA is an example of shannon information because the parent cell passes information to the daughter cells.

DNA also contains specified information though. For example, a coding sequence is a string of codons that specifies which amino acids should be strung together to make a protien. The rings on a tree don't specify how to make anything.

Is that clear enough?

We know living things have heredity (and nonliving things don’t) and we know heredity is based on DNA.
So what does throwing in “information” tells us that makes us any the wiser? What does this tell us that we didn't know before?

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information. Idexical information is information that can be derived by observation. For example, I can look at the rings of a tree and derive its age, vague information about the weather and when there may have been a forest fire. I can look at a shadow and drive the direction of a light source. Shannon information relates to a message and has a sender and a reciever. In this sense DNA is an example of shannon information because the parent cell passes information to the daughter cells. DNA also contains specified information though. For example, a coding sequence is a string of codons that specifies which amino acids should be strung together to make a protien. The rings on a tree don't specify how to make anything. Is that clear enough?

Intelligent Designer the utterly clueless babbled: Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information. Idexical information is information that can be derived by observation. For example, I can look at the rings of a tree and derive its age, vague information about the weather and when there may have been a forest fire. I can look at a shadow and drive the direction of a light source. Shannon information relates to a message and has a sender and a reciever. In this sense DNA is an example of shannon information because the parent cell passes information to the daughter cells. DNA also contains specified information though. For example, a coding sequence is a string of codons that specifies which amino acids should be strung together to make a protien. The rings on a tree don't specify how to make anything. Is that clear enough?

Mike Elzinga said: Recipes don’t make cakes. So how does “specified” information make molecular systems?

Kwok,

You are a Diest as am I. What evidence supports your point of view. Do you think of God as creator, omniscient, or omnipotent?

I am going offline for the night. I'll read your response later.

IBelieveInGod said:

Malchus said: Interesting. Given that, DNA has no information. At least we can start there.

Intelligent Designer said:

Then how come you refuse to provide a definition for "information" at all, let alone define it in the context it's being used Intelligent Design? Then again, in Intelligent Design, "information" is used as a synonym for "magic"

I consider the question to be one of the standard talking points. It doesn't matter what definition I provide it will just be ridiculed. As all of us here know there are many types of information. Some can be measured and some can't. I am not talking about indexical information like what you could deduce from the way a crystal is formed. Almost everything if not everything relates to some kind of indexical information. I am talking about information that specifies something. Examples of such information would be blueprints, design documents, computer programs and DNA.

Is it a true statement to state that DNA has no information?

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information. Idexical information is information that can be derived by observation. For example, I can look at the rings of a tree and derive its age, vague information about the weather and when there may have been a forest fire. I can look at a shadow and drive the direction of a light source. Shannon information relates to a message and has a sender and a reciever. In this sense DNA is an example of shannon information because the parent cell passes information to the daughter cells. DNA also contains specified information though. For example, a coding sequence is a string of codons that specifies which amino acids should be strung together to make a protien. The rings on a tree don't specify how to make anything. Is that clear enough?

Intelligent Designer the clueless scientific illiterate babbled: Kwok, You are a Diest as am I. What evidence supports your point of view. Do you think of God as creator, omniscient, or omnipotent? I am going offline for the night. I'll read your response later.

Malchus said: So you completely disagree with Dembski, Behe, and the entire Discovery Institute on what constitutes "specified information"?

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information. Idexical information is information that can be derived by observation. For example, I can look at the rings of a tree and derive its age, vague information about the weather and when there may have been a forest fire. I can look at a shadow and drive the direction of a light source. Shannon information relates to a message and has a sender and a reciever. In this sense DNA is an example of shannon information because the parent cell passes information to the daughter cells. DNA also contains specified information though. For example, a coding sequence is a string of codons that specifies which amino acids should be strung together to make a protien. The rings on a tree don't specify how to make anything. Is that clear enough?

Mike Elzinga said:

mrg said: Now we are being given the statement: "Organisms have heredity that defines their organization and operation. We have learned that heredity is defined by DNA sequences. These sequences contain information." This third statement tells us absolutely nothing more than we knew before, and there's no honest reason to try to tell anyone that it does.

I have no idea what he means by “indexical” information and how that differs from “specified” information. From what I can gather, “indexical” information has something to do with “systems of atoms.” But it appears that somewhere along the line “specified” information enters the picture. He doesn’t say where, how he knows this, what it does, and how it does it. I see elements apparently gleaned from ID/creationist literature. His misconceptions about entropy suggest he has pretty much the same misconceptions that ID/creationists do; but so far he hasn’t articulated anything. He has made only assertions. I would guess he is attempting to claim that one of those forms of “information” has something to do with “function” or “purpose” or “life” or some other feature of collections of atoms and molecules. I already suspect where his misconceptions lie; but he appears to be resisting all attempts to get him to articulate them.

The whole "information" argument is a red herring, as is the distinction between specified information and indexical information. "Information" is a human mental construct, nothing more. Whether "instructional" or "observational", information requires a mind (to instruct or be instructed, or to observe and give meaning).

DNA contains no information nor does it carry any instructions, except in an abstract sense in the minds of humans. We ascribe those qualities to DNA because it is useful for us to do so. DNA is simply a chemical which, under center conditions, will undergo chemical reactions that lead to the production of a replica chemical following the laws of physics and chemistry. It is not its "purpose" to do that. It was not trying to reproduce itself. It was not carrying out any set of instructions. It wasn't passing along information to the next generation. It was just a chemical behaving in the way that such chemicals must always behave under the same conditions, just like iron rusting in the presence of oxygen.

Any meaning we give to that, or any information we ascribe to the chemical and the processes it undergoes, are simply mental abstractions that we overlay to help us understand, predict, or control what happens, but which are not intrinsic to the chemicals and processes themselves. To call DNA "instructions," and hence information, is to ascribe to the DNA the intent to replicate, in the sense that a cake recipe is created by humans with the intent to replicate cakes. But DNA is a chemical incapable of "intent." Any information you think it contains is in your mind, not in the matter.

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information.

Intelligent Designer said:

Mike Elzinga said: Recipes don’t make cakes. So how does “specified” information make molecular systems?

I never said that specified information makes something. I said it specifies how to make something. If I read a cake recipe and follow its instructions I can make a cake. Ribosomes read mRNA and assemble a collection of amino acids to make protien.

Leviathan said: The whole "information" argument is a red herring, as is the distinction between specified information and indexical information. "Information" is a human mental construct, nothing more. Whether "instructional" or "observational", information requires a mind (to instruct or be instructed, or to observe and give meaning).

Mike Elzinga said: We have been trying to get an ID proponent to actually articulate how “information” acts. This is one of the very few persons who has made some tentative efforts.

Information, specified information. I once had a living room ivy where I could interpret the leaves on a branch spelling
.... / . / .-.. / .--. (had to insert slashes here)

I believe DNA is not like a computer program, a blueprint, or a specification of how something is built. Instead, the 'plan' emerges out of the collective effort of separate parts. I believe it is impossible to reverse engineer a genome.

We see winners and losers in all walks of all of life. Does that mean we can rule out natural causes, 'selection'?

Information, specified information. I once had a living room ivy where I could interpret the leaves on a branch spelling 'help' in Morse code.

I believe DNA is not like a computer program, a blueprint, or a specification of how something is built. Instead, the 'plan' emerges out of the collective effort of separate parts. I believe it is impossible to reverse engineer a genome.

We see winners and losers in all walks of all of life. Does that mean we can rule out natural causes, 'selection'?

Intelligent Designer said: Ribosomes read mRNA and assemble a collection of amino acids to make protien.

Rolf Aalberg said: I believe it is impossible to reverse engineer a genome.

Leviathan said:

Mike Elzinga said: We have been trying to get an ID proponent to actually articulate how “information” acts. This is one of the very few persons who has made some tentative efforts.

Wow! Maybe I need to work on my writing skills if I gave you the impression I'm an ID'er. Perhaps reread what I wrote through the lens of the fact that I agree with you.

John Kwok said: I understood you immediately as I read your post and I am certain that Mike did too.

Intelligent Designer -

To summarize -

1) You can't explain the theory of evolution.

2) No possible can convince you of evolution.

3) Your descriptions of "specified" and "indexical" information are vague and informal. These are just arbitrary terms you invented.

4) Your examples of "design", such as software or recipes, are examples of human activity. These examples merely lead to a sequence total non sequitur. A extremely fair paraphrase would be "humans write recipes, some characteristic of living cells reminds me of recipes, therefore a non-human magically created living cells, and therefore living cells don't evolve". This is not "misrepresentation", it is a very fair attempt to understand and accurately paraphrase your line of reasoning. If it sounds stupid when tersely summarized, perhaps that means something.

5) You can't say who the designer is.

6) You tried to play the disgraceful trick of saying "the designer is God, I don't know who or what God is, but I didn't say that I don't know who or what the designer is". I repeat, you can't say who the designer is.

7) You can't say what the designer did.

8) You can't say when the designer did it.

9) You can't say how the designer did it.

10) You offer no explanation as to why you, individually, are so special that, with no study or even significant informal knowledge of a major scientific subject, you can overturn a major scientific theory in that subject.

As I mentioned above in my analogy of a used car salesman, when I see persistent denial of objective reality in one who seems able to know better, I suspect a conscious or unconscious agenda at work.

Of course I don't know what your agenda is - it might or might not be one or more of the following - a) Your social life could depend on interactions with fundamentalists, and you may realize that they will utterly reject you if you "accept" evolution. b) It could be that you are an ethnic bigot, and are offended by the idea that you share recent common ancestry with some other ethnic group of humans. c) It could be that you are right wing ideologue and see evolution denial as part of an overall political strategy; I realize you have implied that this is not the case but it could still be. d) It could be that you are a fundamentalist engaging in "stealth apologetics", and your goal is to first "disprove evolution" and only then, as the second step, reveal that you lied about lack the specifics of your religion in the first place and that Jesus really is the designer after all; this strategy is surprisingly common, oddly, even though it massively violates the teachings of Jesus. e) Last but by no means least, it could be that you are a desperately insecure/superficially arrogant/emotionally immature narcissist who feels an obsessive and unreasonable need to demonstrate the "superiority" of his own "great genius" over others who actually have more expertise.

Or it could be something I haven't thought of. But it's something.

Intelligent Designer -

I realize that some of my words are a bit strong in my most recent post above.

However, all you would have to do to change my mind would be to acknowledge where others have been correct, and stop making arguments that have been shown to be false.

Leviathan -

Yes, just for emphasis, what John Kwok said was exactly right.

harold said: Intelligent Designer - I realize that some of my words are a bit strong in my most recent post above. However, all you would have to do to change my mind would be to acknowledge where others have been correct, and stop making arguments that have been shown to be false. Leviathan - Yes, just for emphasis, what John Kwok said was exactly right.

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information. Idexical information is information that can be derived by observation. For example, I can look at the rings of a tree and derive its age, vague information about the weather and when there may have been a forest fire. I can look at a shadow and drive the direction of a light source. Shannon information relates to a message and has a sender and a reciever. In this sense DNA is an example of shannon information because the parent cell passes information to the daughter cells. DNA also contains specified information though. For example, a coding sequence is a string of codons that specifies which amino acids should be strung together to make a protien. The rings on a tree don't specify how to make anything. Is that clear enough?

Intelligent Designer the drive by ignorant clueless "Deist" Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone babbled: Kwok, You are a Diest as am I. What evidence supports your point of view. Do you think of God as creator, omniscient, or omnipotent? I am going offline for the night. I'll read your response later.

Leviathan said:

Intelligent Designer said: Specified information is information that specifies how to make something. A recipe is another example of specified information. Idexical information is information that can be derived by observation. For example, I can look at the rings of a tree and derive its age, vague information about the weather and when there may have been a forest fire. I can look at a shadow and drive the direction of a light source. Shannon information relates to a message and has a sender and a reciever. In this sense DNA is an example of shannon information because the parent cell passes information to the daughter cells. DNA also contains specified information though. For example, a coding sequence is a string of codons that specifies which amino acids should be strung together to make a protien. The rings on a tree don't specify how to make anything. Is that clear enough?

Your distinction is a purely semantic distinction, and not a distinction of actual kinds. Specified information, by your definition, can always be recast--or reduced to--what you call indexical information. That is, "specified information" is an epi-concept relative to the concept of "indexical information." For example, we idiomatically think of a cake recipe as a set of instructions, which by your definition makes it specified information. But calling it "instructions" is simply a shorthand for saying that, based on our observations and what we derive from them, a cake recipe is a pattern of symbols on paper that, when viewed by a human under the right conditions, results in that human's increased knowledge of cake making, and sometimes in the actual behavior of cake making. Further, we empirically observe and/or derive from our observations that the pattern of symbols was generated by a human with the intent of facilitating cake making by other humans. When stated like this, a cake recipe is, by your definition, purely indexical. What likely sets it apart for you from other indexical information, and likely why you wish to categorize it separately as specified information, has to do with the last part of the observation, whereby a human purposefully generated the pattern of symbols in order to influence the behavior of other humans. But this observation doesn't imbue the recipe with any special properties, it is simply another observation about the recipe, no different than observations like "the symbols were made with black ink." In the absence of any observation or knowledge of humans, their habits, their motives, and their language, there is nothing about the intrinsic properties of the ink patterns on paper that would warrant the label "instructions". The point of this is that if you want to call DNA a bona fide "instruction," other than in a loose shorthand sense, you can't do so on the basis of any intrinsic property of the molecule or how it behaves physiochemically under certain conditions. Rather, you must make empirical observations about the mind that generated the instruction and the purpose for which it was generated. That is your burden of proof.

Leviathan said:

John Kwok said: I understood you immediately as I read your post and I am certain that Mike did too.

Sorry, I guess it's my reading comprehension skills, not writing skills, that I need to work on!

Mike Elzinga said: And, again, I repeat the question: what is the difference between “indexical” information and “specified” information? What is the need of “indexical” information if it doesn’t do anything? What is it used for. In what form is it manifested?

Since Intelligent Designer, like other creationists, is obsessed with the origin of life on Earth and accuse evolution of being incapable of dealing with it (Only true in the sense that evolution accounts only for the history and current composition of Earth's biodiversity, NOT HOW it originated.), here's an insightful account on the Stanley Miller experiment and its subsequent "end" decades later:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/03/21/scientists-finish-a-53-year-old-classic-experiment-on-the-origins-of-life/

Mike Elzinga said: Examples of this kind of thinking include the “abracadabra beliefs” in which magical words or phrases are supposed to cause some desired action to occur.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: And, again, I repeat the question: what is the difference between “indexical” information and “specified” information? What is the need of “indexical” information if it doesn’t do anything? What is it used for. In what form is it manifested?

Its obvious that the natural world creates information under most definitions, so what Randy is forced to do is create an artificial category of information so that he can then claim that category is impossible for evolution to produce.

Mike Elzinga said:

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: And, again, I repeat the question: what is the difference between “indexical” information and “specified” information? What is the need of “indexical” information if it doesn’t do anything? What is it used for. In what form is it manifested?

Its obvious that the natural world creates information under most definitions, so what Randy is forced to do is create an artificial category of information so that he can then claim that category is impossible for evolution to produce.

I would go further and say that “information” is an emergent property; and it is an emergent property in the category of relationships. “Information” in any system cannot mean anything unless there is another system which gives it “meaning.” The raises and depressions on a key mean nothing without a corresponding lock.

mrg said: That's about the size of it. It's making a fuss about heredity by playing up the casual term "information" in that context and then flexibly defining it so it can be overloaded with implications that are established purely by declaration. Information becomes a "magic word". The reality is that heredity could be discussed in as much detail as desired without ever using the term and nothing would be lost in the discussion. Is there "information" in the genome? I would say SURE, except for the fact that "information" is being used as bafflegab. Getting into arguments over "information" is just being suckered into the game. The right answer to the question is to refuse to play along: "The question is irrelevant."

Robin said: My one quibble with this, and it relates to something Leviathan noted, is that I think the idea that there is information in the genome is inaccurate.

mrg said:

Robin said: My one quibble with this, and it relates to something Leviathan noted, is that I think the idea that there is information in the genome is inaccurate.

OK, but that's kind of my point. "Information" is generally a casual term and people use it loosely without much concern for precision and without discomfort. The ID trick is leverage off this comfort to use "information" as a vague "magic word" to imply a lot of vague consequents -- and bickering over the meaning of "information" is just being suckered into the game since it just gives more opportunities to sow confusion. So my attitude toward the question: "Is there information in the genome?" -- is: "The question is irrelevant." We know heredity is a feature of life and not found in nonlife; we know heredity is embodied in the genome and its codings. Whether it "contains information" or not is a semantic game; whether the answer is YES or NO, we're not the slightest bit wiser. The only purpose in asking the question is to sow confusion, and attempting to answer it only generates confusion.

Robin said: I kind of figured this was your point when you said the term as used was bafflegab. I was just stressing that as my quibble. It just seems to me that the way ID uses the term, it becomes as elusive and meaningless as "soul" and similar concepts.

Well mrg this is why I wrote this Amazon.com review of one of Dumbski's books (with apologies to Sir Elton John and Bernie Taupin):

"Kept reading about Intelligent Design till my eyes were paralyzed.
Thought Bill Dembski's comments were most strange.
Recognizing that his defense of explanatory filter and
specified complexity were so queer.
Gratified to be reading the real truth from Nick Matzke.
Reading the science truth from Wes Elsberry too."

"So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on."

"Recognize that Intelligent Design is
pathetic Klingon Cosmology
Recognize why it's just queer
mendacious intellectual pornography.
Understanding why you're so wrong Bill Dembski
Your mind paralyzed by your Christian God."

"Specified Complexity, Irreducible Complexity,
Just all the same to me.
Mendacious religious nonsense,
Pretending to be scientific theory."

"So, where to now, Bill Dembski?
If it's true, I'm in your hands.
I may not be a Christian,
but I've done all one man can.
I understand I am on a road
where all that was is gone...
So where to now, Bill Dembski?
Show me which road I am on."

mrg said:

Robin said: I kind of figured this was your point when you said the term as used was bafflegab. I was just stressing that as my quibble. It just seems to me that the way ID uses the term, it becomes as elusive and meaningless as "soul" and similar concepts.

Yeah, I didn't mean to bark, but I'm starting to get impatient with people trying to define "information" in the context of the ID argument. I see that as snapping at the bait. Creationism has embraced the "information" argument in a big way because of its evasiveness; it not only allows them to move the goalposts instantly, but to make sure that nobody can figure out any goalpost to begin with.

mrg said: Creationism has embraced the "information" argument in a big way because of its evasiveness; it not only allows them to move the goalposts instantly, but to make sure that nobody can figure out any goalpost to begin with.

If there is a fundamental law in nature that says “everything comes all apart,” then the explanation for why we see complex organisms has to be some overriding organizing entity.

Robin said: Well personally I don't mind the bark since I'm feeling the same frustration. Reading IBIG's unadulterated crap just about gave me an aneurysm earlier.

Mike Elzinga said: If there is a fundamental law in nature that says “everything comes all apart,” then the explanation for why we see complex organisms has to be some overriding organizing entity.

mrg -

The other commonality between SLOT and "information" arguments is that they both represent the lazy, cowardly, arrogant fantasy of "disproving evolution" from above without needing to learn anything about biology.

It takes a strong brainwashing job and/or a highly sleazy personal style to mold a creationist damaged enough to literally expose themselves to actual biology without being overcome with discomfort. Not everyone can be a Jonathan Wells or a Casey Luskin.

mrg said:

Robin said: Well personally I don't mind the bark since I'm feeling the same frustration. Reading IBIG's unadulterated crap just about gave me an aneurysm earlier.

I skip over Biggie's posts usually, and when I do glance at them it's not for long. There's no real content in them, all they amount to is repetitive sneering. I tend to see Biggie as a badly-written ELIZA-type program that emulates a fundy, generating semi-incoherent output.

Mike Elzinga said: And it would be quite easy to do ... So all one has to do is provide a feedback loop in the ELISA program which sends some fraction of the output right back to the input.

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: And it would be quite easy to do ... So all one has to do is provide a feedback loop in the ELISA program which sends some fraction of the output right back to the input.

That's how ELIZA programs work -- they extract keywords out of input text and then index output text against them. I've only played with one once in my life, a long time ago; that was exasperating enough. An ELIZA-type program emulating a fundy would, of course, need to have a database of scriptural quotes.

Leviathan said: The point of this is that if you want to call DNA a bona fide "instruction," other than in a loose shorthand sense, you can't do so on the basis of any intrinsic property of the molecule or how it behaves physiochemically under certain conditions.

Scott F said: They're just dots and dashes. The "specification" of the information is in how it is used. And that depends on a lot of other dots and dashes working together.

Those emergent properties that Mike likes so much. :-)

Then there's the colloquial meaning of "information" - data that's useful to somebody or something.

Which makes it a value judgment, i.e., subjective.

Henry J said: Then there's the colloquial meaning of "information" - data that's useful to somebody or something. Which makes it a value judgment, i.e., subjective.

To paraphrase Sagan, "The question is: at which end of the telescope is the intelligence?"

Interesting article. I guess it depends. Maybe one can argue that the biological design might have arisen from a non-supernatural Intelligent Designer, however i see no way that the same logic can be applied for the whole cosmos if indeed the current Big Bang model happened to be correct. If the Kalam cosmological argument as espouse by Dr. William lane Craig happened to be remotely correct, then there is no other way to frame this, but to say that ID (at least outside of biology) is theistic.

Thanks

Christian Louboutin Sandals, our intellectual property rights of TD-SCDMA 3G technology in the ITU standards to achieve a Christian Louboutin Slingback historic breakthrough in the monopoly by the United States and Europe and other communications technology companies occupy a place in the field of standardization. But in fact,Cheap Louboutin, the same as the other two international 3G standard technology than China’s TD-SCDMA to mature much cheap christian louboutin shoes more.of very early follow-up on the evolution of TD-SCDMA technology,wholesale, reserves in key technology and industry on the layout,Christian louboutin outlets, the RF, base stations, chip and so increase research and development,Buy christian, and to take That all enterprises can Christian Louboutin Pumps engage in TD-LTE equipment development and production, and then by special test platform,Discount christian louboutin shoes, which can arouse the enthusiasm of all types of enterprises at home and abroad. It can single of discount christian louboutin shoes my claimed favorites( or abroad it wouldn??t remain in this account appropriate.

Dualism is also a theological notion, that argues that the physical and the spiritual are separate, and not intertwined. Not that they both don't exist, but that they are separate.

I have long been impressed that DI rhetoric sounds dualistic. Their continual harping on a Designer like an Engineer is, well, grotesque, in Christian theology. It is a Creator who is removed, not intimate, not involved. It is quite contrary to the meaning of the authors of the Genesis myths. It argues that God is so separate from his creation that he treats it as if it were a machine- not that he is inanimate and panentheistic.

What I'm saying is that, besides ID being bad science, it is also dualistic, even in the theological sense, and is therefore really really bad Christian theology.

Good thing they aren't a theistic or Christian group.

Third China - ASEAN Men's Basketball Tournament Christian Louboutin sale in the evening of 30 held Pingguo County in Baise City. From the christian louboutin shoes Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, christian louboutin sale Brunei, Malaysia and Macau, China, Hong Kong and Guangxi 9 basketball team will begin the Friends of the ball here. Dynamic team play against the Vietnamese in Hong Kong team, opened the tournament's curtain. Section I, the Hong Kong team frequently has little or nothing breakthrough goal in Vietnam was calm and agile team to pull the score was 2 to 14. Third China - ASEAN Men's christian louboutin sale Basketball Tournament in the evening of 30 held Pingguo County in Baise City. christian louboutin pumps From the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia and Macau, China, Hong Kong.