Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Specified complexity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Roy View Post
    Berlinski might be one. Who are the others?
    As I noted a month ago there is reason to doubt that he is.
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    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.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
      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...

      Last edited by JohnHermes; 02-19-2019, 02:23 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        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
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Which protein complexes do you mean? Do you include the flagellum? It certainly looks designed.
          Not to me it doesn't.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DayOneish View Post
            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



            Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial
            en español

            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.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DayOneish View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • 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


                The Kitzmiller case was the result of the CSC’s relentless execution of its Wedge Strategy, a well-financed PR campaign aimed at the media, the public, and educational policymakers. CSC creationists have outlined their tactics and goals in "The Wedge Strategy", informally called the "Wedge Document" (various versions of this document are available on-line, including http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html). Preparing for an eventual lawsuit, they broadcast their legal arguments in a 2000 Utah Law Review article. Earlier, in Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, a 1999 publication aimed at school officials, they explicitly argued that teaching ID is legal. Their long-sought opportunity to use these arguments came in fall 2004 in the form of the Dover Area School Board’s policy requiring teachers to read a statement endorsing ID as an alternative scientific theory. Yet the Discovery Institute wanted no part of this policy. Despite its Wedge strategy goal to achieve "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies," their legal bravado melted away like a snowball in August. What happened?

                What happened is that the efforts of pro-science activists, with NCSE’s assistance, have taken their toll. Pushing back against the CSC’s attempts to get ID into their science curricula, concerned citizens in Kansas, Ohio, and elsewhere fought to thwart ID creationists’ plans to hijack their schools. In Kitzmiller, they were joined by eleven courageous parents in tiny Dover, Pennsylvania. Scholars and scientists exposed ID as a creationist sham in books and essays. Consequently, CSC creationists now disavow their own terminology, running like scared rabbits from proposals to teach "intelligent design". They urge supporters to disguise pro-ID policy proposals with code words such as teaching "evidence against evolution". After more than a decade promoting "intelligent design", ID creationists now consider this term a legal liability. But when the Dover board, supported by the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), refused to play its linguistic game, the CSC had to face the unpleasant reality that it had lost control of its own agenda. However much it wanted to forestall the Dover trial, it was powerless to do so.

                The smoking gun

                I had two responsibilities as a witness: (1) to present and analyze empirical data that would demonstrate to Judge Jones that ID is merely a new strain of creationism and, as such, a religious belief; and (2) to show that Of Pandas and People is a creationist textbook. These tasks were not difficult; ID creationists had provided me with excellent resources such as the Wedge strategy. Walking the judge through this document, I explained its major points, which establish that ID is not merely religion in a general sense, but sectarian Christian apologetics. I quoted relevant statements such as this one: "Alongside a focus on influential opinion makers, we [ID creationists at the CSC] also seek to build up a popular base of support [for ID] among our natural constituency, namely Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars." I produced evidence showing that ID leaders themselves understand ID as both creationism and sectarian religion. Phillip Johnson, who developed the Wedge Strategy, defines ID as "theistic realism" or "mere creation". William Dembski, one of the strategy’s chief executors, defines it as "the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

                But the "smoking gun" — as NCSE’s Nick Matzke put it — was Pandas. The NCSE archivist’s discovery in a 1981 creationist newspaper of an ad by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE) seeking authors for a textbook that would be "sensitively written to present both evolution and creation" was an auspicious find. Interpreting the ad as a tip that FTE, publisher of Pandas, might have kept early drafts, plaintiffs’ attorneys subpoenaed all documents related to the book. Among the thousands of pages FTE produced were a 1983 and a 1986 draft, and two 1987 drafts, all written in blatantly creationist language. Beginning with the 1986 draft, "creation" was defined using the classic creationist concept of "abrupt appearance": "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." The 1989 and 1993 published versions preserve this definition verbatim, except that "intelligent design" and "agency" are substituted for "creation" and "creator", respectively.

                My analysis of the drafts brought a memorable "Eureka" moment. Working late one night, I discovered a crucial difference between the two 1987 drafts: one was written before the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision outlawing creationism in public schools, and the other was obviously written afterwards. The first version contained blatant creationist terminology. In the second, creationist terminology had been deleted and replaced by "intelligent design" and other ID terms. A 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.

                Knowing that my testimony would make all of this information part of the legal record, the TMLC tried to have me excluded from the case. When they failed, the saviors of modern science at the Discovery Institute tried to discredit me with ridicule by posting on their website a fake interview of Dr "Barking" Forrest by a fictitious radio host. When I saw this unbelievable silliness prior to departing for the trial, I could only hope that Judge Jones was also consulting DI’s website in his preparation for the case.

                © Copyright Original Source



                By the way, I am not an atheist.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-19-2019, 05:34 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DayOneish View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    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.'
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-19-2019, 09:06 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JohnHermes View Post
                      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.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • September is early this year
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                            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.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Seeker View Post
                              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''.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Yup. Their argument requires their conclusion.
                                Unfortunately, it seems to be the case.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X