Specified complexity

[shunyadragon]

But this simply states that Dembski's definition is circular, without telling us why.

Blessings,
Lee

It explains that, and you are ignoring the reference. It is not only circular, but bad science and the misuse of probability as referenced in a number of sources.

[shunyadragon]

Well, good judgment, not just a casual look, keeping in mind what natural processes can do. And we're still a long way from translating DNA into behavior! So that's not even possible right now.

Blessings,
Lee

Sound objective verifiable evidence, and sound hypothesis have demonstrated what natural processes cad do, and where the Discovery Institute's claims for Intelligent Design has failed to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis as to what natural processes cannot do.

Again bogus 'arguing from ignorance' is not evidence for a falsifiable hypothesis.

Still waiting . . .

[HMS_Beagle]

But this simply states that Dembski's definition is circular, without telling us why.

Dembski DEFINED "specified complexity" (or CSI) as something which can ONLY be produced by intelligence. Then he claims DNA is chock full of CSI therefore must be intelligently designed. It's a completely circular argument and completely worthless.

[lee_merrill]

It explains that...

Well, how so?

where the Discovery Institute's claims for Intelligent Design has failed to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis as to what natural processes cannot do.

The explanatory filter of Dembski has a falsifiable conclusion of "this object is designed."

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Dembski DEFINED "specified complexity" (or CSI) as something which can ONLY be produced by intelligence.

Thanks for addressing the question of circularity, but no, it doesn't, see the definition I posted in my first post here in this thread.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for addressing the question of circularity, but no, it doesn't, see the definition I posted in my first post here in this thread.

Blessings,
Lee

It most definitely fits the definition of circularity where the assumptions of 'Specified Complexity' are the basis of the conclusion without objective verifiable evidence to support a falsifiable hypothesis that would go beyond the assumptions of 'Specified Complexity.'

[TheLurch]

Thanks for addressing the question of circularity, but no, it doesn't, see the definition I posted in my first post here in this thread.

We can now detect the presence of multiple planets using a combination of radial velocity measurements and orbital timing variations. These rely on complex combinations of multiple red- and blue-shifts to indicate the presence of planets, and then calculations of the gravitational influence of the planets on each other to indicate how those affect the timing of the red/blue shifts. Thus, there's a pattern, it's complex, and it specifies information that's independent of the pattern itself.

Is that specified and complex?

[lee_merrill]

We can now detect the presence of multiple planets using a combination of radial velocity measurements and orbital timing variations. These rely on complex combinations of multiple red- and blue-shifts to indicate the presence of planets, and then calculations of the gravitational influence of the planets on each other to indicate how those affect the timing of the red/blue shifts. Thus, there's a pattern, it's complex, and it specifies information that's independent of the pattern itself.

Is that specified and complex?

I would say no, because the red/blue shifts are not conditionally independent of the events (the existence of planets).

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

It most definitely fits the definition of circularity where the assumptions of 'Specified Complexity' are the basis of the conclusion without objective verifiable evidence to support a falsifiable hypothesis that would go beyond the assumptions of 'Specified Complexity.'

But how is it that the definition does not allow objective evidence to falsify the conclusion of design? If I understand what you are saying here...

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But how is it that the definition does not allow objective evidence to falsify the conclusion of design? If I understand what you are saying here...

The definition does not preclude the falsification of a hypothesis, but the failure of presenting a hypothesis that may be falsified results in the fact the hypothesis remains circular.

[shunyadragon]

I would say no, because the red/blue shifts are not conditionally independent of the events (the existence of planets).

Blessings,
Lee

Actually no, this is a false assumption to justify a religious agenda.

Sources please?

[Roy]

I would say no, because the red/blue shifts are not conditionally independent of the events (the existence of planets).

Then gene sequences are not conditionally independent of the events (the existence if DNA), and gene sequences are not specified and complex.

[lee_merrill]

The definition does not preclude the falsification of a hypothesis, but the failure of presenting a hypothesis that may be falsified results in the fact the hypothesis remains circular.

Correct, the definition does not preclude the falsification of the hypothesis of design--and how can a hypothesis be circular?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Then gene sequences are not conditionally independent of the events (the existence if DNA), and gene sequences are not specified and complex.

But gene sequences are independent of the existence of DNA, the fact that DNA exists does not determine the sequence of nucleotides.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But gene sequences are independent of the existence of DNA, the fact that DNA exists does not determine the sequence of nucleotides.

Blessings,
Lee

True, natural selection determines the 'gene sequences are independent of the existence of DNA, the fact that DNA exists does not determine the sequence of nucleotides.'