Specified complexity

[rogue06]

Berlinski might be one. Who are the others?

As I noted a month ago there is reason to doubt that he is.

Berlinski describes himself as a secular Jew as well as an agnostic.

There is however reason to doubt his claim. Anyone who has heard him speak (plenty of videos on YouTube) or read what he has written cannot but help notice that many of his objections to evolution are grounded in religion (which is absolutely acceptable for those who say that they are religious but more than a bit suspect coming from someone who repeatedly declares that he isn't). This makes one suspect that he may be saying that he's agnostic for no other reason than he feels that it somehow gives credibility to the Intelligent Design movement because evolution deniers can therefore claim that not all of those who object to evolution do so on religious grounds.

Then there is the issue of his having misrepresented his credentials in other ways, which tends to support the idea he is not being forthcoming in his claims about himself. He as often promoted himself as a mathematician and philosopher of science -- neither of which is true.

While he has written books about mathematics that doesn't make one a mathematician (especially considering that some of his works have been criticized for making some fundamental mathematical errors). And while he is indeed a philosopher he is not a philosopher of science.

[JohnHermes]

Oh dear.

First, DNA etc hasn't been arranged into a specific pattern, so claiming that life is full of specified complexity is suspect.

But there is an even bigger hole in your argument.

If living systems do contain specified complexity then there are two known causes of high levels of specified complexity: (human) intelligence and evolution.

Or, if you insist on rejecting evolution, there is a known cause of specified complexity and an unknown cause - and you can't simply claim that the unknown cause is the same as the known one.

Your argument, in a nutshell: Complex things we built were built (by us), so complex things we didn't build were built (by us)..
Expressed formally: X&Y -> Z => X -> Z.

I did say there were much worse arguments than the one by Seeker's friend that you objected to, but I didn't expect you to provide one, let alone so quickly.

How is that suspect of DNA exactly? You given no reasons behind your claims...Doesn't sound like logical fallacy. Systems do contain specific complexity which perform certain duties. Um they're called patterns which create more complex patterns which includes instructions called "code" creating your design. Now you can't deny the existence that the universe is based on code. Patterns which gives rise to designs through specific instructions called codes which perform a function. So far so good? Nature never lies just your opinions do.

For example, light taken from the sun is coded(translated) or instructed into food for a plant and that plant eats the light through photosynthesis, so far so good? Now what would happen if those instructions or codes take placed? Well guess what, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, lol. Do you know level of subatomic and molecular involvement for this process to take place? I can see some clearly lack the knowledge in basic programming or biology or done even basic research for that matter. That beagle weagle can't even different between too and to. So it takes only human intelligence to create such complex "patterns" or evolution? Hmm the coder needs the blueprint...

[lee_merrill]

I find the whole argument truly bizarre, because none of these protein complexes look designed to me. Don't know why, and i know that there are other people who do think they look designed. But it really does drive home that this is just a matter of personal opinion, rather than anything objective.

Which protein complexes do you mean? Do you include the flagellum? It certainly looks designed, and passes Dembski's explanatory filter.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Which protein complexes do you mean? Do you include the flagellum? It certainly looks designed.

Not to me it doesn't.

[shunyadragon]

Actually, it doesn't. There are secular Jews and agnostics at the Discovery Institute.

There is only on Jew affiliated with the Discovery Institute.

In fact, their religious/ideological makeup is very similar to America's as a whole, which is exactly what you would expect from an organization with no ingrained bias.

No it is not, one Jw and the rest fundamentalist Christians is not representative of America.

The only bias here is the fact that you have a problem with an organization for not having an anti-religion bias.

As for what I.D. is, it's simple: the detection of design in biology, using methods which are uncritically accepted everywhere outside of biology.

If an I.D. proponent happens to believe the designer of living systems is God, that is their personal belief, and not an extension of the theory of I.D.

The Dover trial documented the fundamentalist Christian religious agenda for ID and the Discovery Institute.

Source: https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id

Forrest's Testimony: "Creationism" and "ID"
Submitted by Susan Spath on October 17, 2008 - 21:47
Here are the now-famous word-count charts used by Barbara Forrest in her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover. These charts showed that the words "creation" and "creationist" were systematically changed to "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in the drafts for the book Of Pandas and People, in the aftermath of the 1987 Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard .

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/forrests-testimony-creationism-id

In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, tried in 2005 in a Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, "intelligent design" was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore, unconstitutional to teach in American public schools.

As the first case to test a school district policy requiring the teaching of "intelligent design," the trial attracted national and international attention. Both plaintiffs and defendants in the case presented expert testimony over six weeks from September 26 through November 4, 2005). On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones issued a sharply-worded ruling in which he held that "intelligent design" was, as the plaintiffs argued, a form of creationism.

NCSE served as a pro bono consultant for the plaintiffs and assisted the legal team in choosing and preparing expert witnesses and in helping the lawyers deal with the scientific and technical material. A special issue of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education, (vol. 26, no. 1-2), covers several aspects of the Kitzmiller case. This article by former NCSE staff member Nicholas J. Matzke describes NCSE's role in the Kitzmiller case.

As the first trial over "intelligent design," the case received national media attention and has since been the subject of several books.

NCSE provides access to the public legal documents in this case, articles by participants, podcasts, and more.

© Copyright Original Source

More to follow . . .

If you had better arguments, shunyadragon, you wouldn't have to lie all the time. Something worth considering.

Have not lied at all please document.

[HMS_Beagle]

Which is exactly what I.D. does, yet you're so blinded by your ideology that you're unable to admit it.

What known "designed" life does ID try to match then?

If you want to lie to me, that's fine; I have no problem seeing through lies and calling people out for them. You really shouldn't lie to yourself, though. It's very unhealthy.

You seem to be the only one around here lying for your cause.

The genetic code, the foundation of life, is a literal programming language.

LOL! No, it is not. Human software is sometimes used as an analogy for the genetic code but analogies aren't reality.

So, yes, what we see in life is entirely comparable to the work of human intelligence.

Analogous, yes. Identical, no. You're not the first scientifically illiterate Creationist to confuse analogies with evidence.

Maybe you should contact MIT, Harvard, U.C. Berkley, etc., and inform them that there's no relation whatsoever between human design and biological design, and they should shut down their bio-engineering and bio-informatics courses.

Are you really stupid enough to think if humans copy some physical feature found in nature that means the natural phenomenon was "designed?" Rhetorical question.

There is one thing you're right about, yet ironically, it's actually further evidence for I.D.: human intelligence has never been able to engineer life from non-life.

Humans have never built a full scale working volcano either. Does that make Pele a real volcano goddess?

If you gentleman don't start arguing in good faith and with reason and logic, I'm not even going to waste my time here.

Since you seems to be just another garden variety ignorant troll, good riddance. Don't let the doorknob hit you in the butt on the way out.

[shunyadragon]

More documentation that the Discovery Institute Intelligent Design is a Fundamentalist Creationist argument. The last paragraph in BOLD of this reference documents the dishonest Discovery Institute' methods to promote their agenda at all possible costs to their credibility.

Source: https://ncse.com/library-resource/my-role-kitzmiller-v-dover

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.htmlA new footnote in the latter version referenced the Edwards decision, indicating a conscious attempt to circumvent the Edwards ruling in the revised manuscript that would become Pandas. The "search and replace" operation must have been done in a hurry: in the post-Edwards manuscript, "creationists" was not completely deleted by whoever tried to replace it with "design proponents". The hybrid term "cdesign proponentsists" now stands as a "missing link" between the blatantly creationist earlier drafts and the post-Edwards versions of Pandas.

© Copyright Original Source

By the way, I am not an atheist.

[Seeker]

Your friend's argument is so idiotic that I've had to reread 12 times to make sure I'm getting it correct.

You friend's argument, in a nutshell: "if crystals were something entirely different from crystals, and exactly like lifeforms, we would recognize them as lifeforms, therefor, there's no difference between crystals and lifeforms."

I have to say, in my many years of reading the Darwin vs. design debate, this might be the worst "argument" I've ever read.

Crystals are just basic fractals -- simple repeating patterns -- and are easily explained by physics. That design-deniers are forced to cling to them is strong evidence of how weak and desperate their position is.

If life were anywhere near as simple as a repeating pattern, don't you think the origin of life would've been solved centuries ago?

The foundation of life is a genetic code and cellular machinery capable of reading and processing that code -- this is light years beyond basic fractals.

No, you read it totally wrong. He's saying complexity isn't crucial to recognize life as such, and that the word ''specified'' is undefined.

To conclude, try to do two things: define what ''specified'' means in the context of this discussion, and by extension, try to to define ''specified complexity'' in a way that is not circular. He's saying the argument is circular because the word specified is circular. Try to define it NOT SO.

And don't be too angry, please. I started this thread with the best of intentions.

[shunyadragon]

Which protein complexes do you mean? Do you include the flagellum? It certainly looks designed, and passes Dembski's explanatory filter.

Blessings,
Lee

Actually no, 'looking designed' from Dempski's nor your perspective is an anecdotal claim. The flagellum has been adequately described by science as naturally evolved with no evidence of the so called ID 'specified complexity' that would determine that it could not have evolved naturally Even functioning organelles related to flagellum with missing parts are known to be functional in other organisms.

There is no evidence you are 'willing to learn.'

[Roy]

How is that suspect of DNA exactly? You given no reasons behind your claims...

The ID claim is that DNA/gene sequences are specified complexity; that nucleotides are arranged into a specific sequence. They calculate the probability of that specific sequence having arisen randomly, and compare it to randomly chosen letters matching an existing sentence. But they never say where the specification is. They never show that there is a specific pattern that the DNA has been arranged to match.

Doesn't sound like logical fallacy. Systems do contain specific complexity which perform certain duties. Um they're called patterns which create more complex patterns which includes instructions called "code" creating your design. Now you can't deny the existence that the universe is based on code.

That last sentence doesn't make sense.

Patterns which gives rise to designs through specific instructions called codes which perform a function. So far so good? Nature never lies just your opinions do.

For example, light taken from the sun is coded(translated) or instructed into food for a plant and that plant eats the light through photosynthesis, so far so good? Now what would happen if those instructions or codes take placed? Well guess what, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, lol. Do you know level of subatomic and molecular involvement for this process to take place? I can see some clearly lack the knowledge in basic programming or biology or done even basic research for that matter.

How much knowledge of basic programming and biology do you have? Based on your description of photosynthesis I suspect it's not a lot. I have no qualms about comparing qualifications.

That beagle weagle can't even different between too and to.

You aren't doing too well yourself.

[Roy]

September is early this year

[Seeker]

But they never say where the specification is. They never show that there is a specific pattern that the DNA has been arranged to match.

That's because they think the function of DNA is preprogrammed by God. The specific pattern in DNA has been arranged to match whatever God intended when ''Creation'' happened. So once again we're stuck in circularity. How does one determine if any given specific of DNA is the product of intelligence?

[Roy]

That's because they think the function of DNA is preprogrammed by God. The specific pattern in DNA has been arranged to match whatever God intented when ''Creation'' happened. So once again we're stuck in circularity. How does one determine if any given specific of DNA is the product of intelligence?

Yup. Their argument requires their conclusion.

[Seeker]

That's because they think the function of DNA is preprogrammed by God. The specific pattern in DNA has been arranged to match whatever God intended when ''Creation'' happened. So once again we're stuck in circularity. How does one determine if any given specific of DNA is the product of intelligence?

I meant ''specific piece''.

[Seeker]

Yup. Their argument requires their conclusion.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the case.