Creation Bits

I'm more interested in Dembski's review:
Anyone at all familiar with current discussions of neuroscience, consciousness studies, and the mind-body problem will realize just how fiercely materialistic and nondualist these fields are. Schwartz's explicit anti-materialism and embrace of dualism therefore places him at odds with the scientific and philosophical mainstream.

This is akin to admitting that creationism places one at odds with the biological sciences community. What do you think of the parallel? Bad one or good one? Are the arguments and evidences for creationism better or worse than those for immaterial mental states?
 

PS: The definition of ID is given on the DI webpage, here:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I am convinced that I know what ID is and isn't better than most creationists or scientists, as it is an interest of mine that I have spent considerable time reading about and thinking about and writing about.
 

"This is akin to admitting that creationism places one at odds with the biological sciences community"

Do you know anyone who thinks that Creationism is not at odds with the biological sciences community?

"Are the arguments and evidences for I think the evidence for a young earthcreationism better or worse than those for immaterial mental states?"

Which part of Creationism, specifically? It's a big topic. I think that the evidence that the origin of life occurred via an intelligent cause is overwhelming, but less than the existence of immaterial mental states. I think that the existence of immaterial mental states is so basic to experience, it is silly that it is so ignored in the sciences.

"I am convinced that I know what ID is and isn't"

Based on your critique of Gil, I would say that you are incorrect. In order to even perform a design inference, there has to be a causal category of "agency". If that isn't a distinct causal category, then there is absolutely nothing for a design inference to do!

As for the definition by the DI, I agree with it. The paper I pointed to above is all about features of the universe best explained by an intelligent cause. It even discusses how that intelligent cause interrelates with physics! It also explains how the cause is directed rather than undirected.

Now, it could be that agency is contained within matter itself -- that's a possible which ID does not exclude (though which I personally do). But even that is certainly a much different perspective than the current "chance and necessity" crowd running biology.
 

Hi Crevo,

Please - with your amazing computer-programming insights and impeccable scientific acumen - explain to all of us low lifes just how one performs a 'design inference'.

And please, do one on an object known to be designed by a non-material intelligence, then do one on an unknown object so we can see just how well you can apply your voluminous knowledge of ID.
 

doppleganger --

I prefer Behe's to Dembski's. I think holism with interacting well-matched parts is a hallmark of design.

The key parts are well-matched parts, a specific purpose, and a holistic core system.

Also, Voie has shown that self-referential symbolic systems are also hallmarks of design.

"And please, do one on an object known to be designed by a non-material intelligence"

What's your definition of non-material intelligence? I think that all humans contain non-material intelligence, so I will use that as the standard.

"then do one on an unknown object so we can see just how well you can apply your voluminous knowledge of ID."

This is actually fairly easy with Voie's. Every self-referential symbolic system which we know the origin of is designed. The genetic code is likewise a self-referential symbolic system. Therefore, the genetic code is designed.
 

Ah - the tautological escape clause. Human contrivances are designed, therefore, Intelligent Design is true, therefore evolution is wrong because some biological entities meet or criterion for being designed.

I am not sure why ID creationists employ these clearly incongruous notions to try to prop up their preferred ideology. Actually, I know exactly why, but I wonder if THEY do?

The overall concept of ID is not about what humans do, it is to counter evolution by "identifying" "Design" in Nature. Please spare us all the poliotical slogans and wishy washy bafflegab. If it were not for the religious zealotry of Johnson et al., there would be no ID 'movement', and ID as a concept would be nonexistent.

As for the linked paper, there is no connection whatsoever to ID as such.

Oh - plus I am still waiting for the second half of your "information" article as well as a rational response to the Haldane's 'dilemma' issues. Fred Williams had no answers, either, by the way.
 

"Ah - the tautological escape clause. Human contrivances are designed, therefore, Intelligent Design is true, therefore evolution is wrong because some biological entities meet or criterion for being designed."

Isn't that what you asked for? You asked for design detection on a known designed object.

If you know of a way to get a self-referential symbolic system WITHOUT design, please let me know.

"The overall concept of ID is not about what humans do"

It is about causitive forces. Darwinism assumes that agency is not a cause, but merely chance and necessity in a complex configuration. This is why everything on ID, from the Wedge on up, talks about Materialist philosophy -- THAT is what is being argued against. Darwinism just happens to be the Creation story of materialism.

"If it were not for the religious zealotry of Johnson et al., there would be no ID 'movement', and ID as a concept would be nonexistent."

You should read Johnson's "Reason in the Balance". What is at stake is not theology, but reason itself. When materialism takes hold, you lose all reason for reason itself. It becomes a non-sensical term.

"As for the linked paper, there is no connection whatsoever to ID as such."

Why not? Defend your answer.

"Oh - plus I am still waiting for the second half of your "information" article"

Thanks! Good to know there are people eager to read it. It has been on pause both for my baraminology blog and for some ideas it sparked for me with regards to conservation of information.

"as well as a rational response to the Haldane's 'dilemma' issues"

As far as I'm aware, I've responded to all of your issues. If I've missed one, let me know which one.
 

"Isn't that what you asked for? You asked for design detection on a known designed object."

Why are you being so obtuse?
Do you really think that nobody understands what the ID movement is all about? Are you really equating human design with the Design of ID Creationism? Isn't thatr awfully pretentious?

"If you know of a way to get a self-referential symbolic system WITHOUT design, please let me know."

So, I will take it that the only 'knowns' the ID political movement has to prop up its utility are human contrivances.
Essentially, an argument via analogy. Which is no argument at all.



"It is about causitive forces. Darwinism assumes that agency is not a cause, but merely chance and necessity in a complex configuration. This is why everything on ID, from the Wedge on up, talks about Materialist philosophy -- THAT is what is being argued against. Darwinism just happens to be the Creation story of materialism."

Can't beat the science, use philosophy.


"You should read Johnson's "Reason in the Balance". What is at stake is not theology, but reason itself. When materialism takes hold, you lose all reason for reason itself. It becomes a non-sensical term."

Why would I want to read the ignorant musings of a religious zealot lawyer on philosophy?
What I find mystifying is that seemingly rational people can actually take seriously arguments like "you lose all reason for reason itself."


"Why not? Defend your answer."


Because it is not about Design. Pretty simple, really. Please spare me the 'ID is about causes' claptrap. Like I said, it is obvious what ID is and is all about. The attempt to make it seem innocuous and only a means to investigate the world is a smokescreen, and you must know that.

Now defend your claim that the paper IS about ID.


"As far as I'm aware, I've responded to all of your issues. If I've missed one, let me know which one. "

Blowing off, dismissing out of hand, ignoting, etc. is not really dealing with.
Whining to Fred Williams is not really dealing with things, either. He could not answer my questions, neither could ReMine, and you pulled the same nonsense they have done.

The questions I and others have brought up are very important, relevant, and potentially devastating issues for the whole creationist 'Haldane's dilemma' argument. I can understand why ReMine worshippers would want to minimize their importance, but the means by which it has been done is pretty transparent.

There is also the issue of your belief that bipedality should requite 40 million+ mutations. I mean, come on...
 

"Why are you being so obtuse?"

I'm not. If you don't believe that people doing ID really believe in it as a science, well, that's your delusion.

"Are you really equating human design with the Design of ID Creationism?"

It depends on what you mean by "equating". I don't think we can accomplish what God accomplished, but I think the nature of choice contingency is essentially the same. In Genesis, God make order out of chaos, which is essentially the same thing that humans do when designing systems. Programmers, for instance, require systems that have a certain amount of chaos in order to harness that chaos into useful order.

"So, I will take it that the only 'knowns' the ID political movement has to prop up its utility are human contrivances."

Yes. I don't think anyone has made any bones about it.

"Essentially, an argument via analogy. Which is no argument at all."

Incorrect. (1) the process of design detection is valid whether or not biology is a "hit" on the design detection radar. (2) it is an argument via shared properties, not analogy. See Hannah's Post in the Cornell class on the issue.

"Can't beat the science, use philosophy."

If you don't think that science is based in philosophy and heavily dependent on it, then you are very naive.

"Why would I want to read the ignorant musings of a religious zealot lawyer on philosophy?"

Well, you were the one who brought him up. If you don't bother to read what he actually wrote, then it seems kind of silly to criticize and then refuse to read him altogether.

"The attempt to make it seem innocuous and only a means to investigate the world is a smokescreen, and you must know that."

You don't think that ID'ers want to investigate the world? I see why you ignore the arguments so much, then. You just don't care about them, because you are wrapped up in "the conspiracy" that the arguments don't matter.

"Now defend your claim that the paper IS about ID."

I already have. It's simple. It deals with agency operating at the neurophysiological level. As I've said many times, ID is, at its fundamental levels, a theory of causation.

"There is also the issue of your belief that bipedality should requite 40 million+ mutations."

Interestingly, I never said that.
 

"Why are you being so obtuse?"

I'm not. If you don't believe that people doing ID really believe in it as a science, well, that's your delusion.

Non sequitur.
It is irrelevant what these people believe. It is obvious that arguing via analogy is not one of the ways science is done.

"Are you really equating human design with the Design of ID Creationism?"

It depends on what you mean by "equating". I don't think we can accomplish what God accomplished, but I think the nature of choice contingency is essentially the same. In Genesis, God make order out of chaos, which is essentially the same thing that humans do when designing systems. Programmers, for instance, require systems that have a certain amount of chaos in order to harness that chaos into useful order.

Is that what programmers do? Huh…
So you are attempting to justify the argument via analogy. Sorry – that sort of “evidence” will only ever work in the fantasy world of IDcreationsim.

"So, I will take it that the only 'knowns' the ID political movement has to prop up its utility are human contrivances."

Yes. I don't think anyone has made any bones about it.

Then ID is really useless as a science, as a tool for science, and as a paradigm. If all it can do is tell us what we already know, what good is it to science? We know humans make things, we don’t need some concocted set of ‘equations’ and logical filters to tell us this. It is no wonder then that nobody in the ID camp has ever actually applied the notions to actual biological entities.

"Essentially, an argument via analogy. Which is no argument at all."

Incorrect. (1) the process of design detection is valid whether or not biology is a "hit" on the design detection radar.

No, it is correct. Look at any scientific publication. Analogies are used to explain/describe things. They are not used as evidence.

(2) it is an argument via shared properties, not analogy. See Hannah's Post in the Cornell class on the issue.

I found Hannah’s special pleading unconvincing. How does one determine what properties are shared? Why, via analogy, of course. Her entire position is premised on a set of idiosyncratic definitions and requisites. It is, in fact, an argument via analogy:

“Our reasoning is as follows: in all situations in which we have a causal history, the presence of complex specified information (or, in Behe’s case, IC systems) unequivocally entails intelligent agency….”

What is the causal history of, say, the bacterial flagellum? There isn’t one. We have causal histories of human activities, and we know that human activities are the result of human intelligence; when we see what we define as CSI in, say, computer programs, we and we know that humans design and ‘make’ computer programs, therefore, when we ‘find’ CSI as we define and apply it in things like the bacterial flagellum, we can conclude that (human) intelligence is the cause.

Not only is it an argument via analogy, it is something of a tautology.

"Can't beat the science, use philosophy."

If you don't think that science is based in philosophy and heavily dependent on it, then you are very naive.

Yes, I must be naïve. Please set me straight, of computer programmer and knower of all.
Sorry – I don’t take my marching orders from lawyers and other such gurus. I’m more of a pragmatic sort. But like I said, when you cannot provide any relevant, legitimate science, try to turn it into a philosophical issue. Or a culture war.

"Why would I want to read the ignorant musings of a religious zealot lawyer on philosophy?"

Well, you were the one who brought him up. If you don't bother to read what he actually wrote, then it seems kind of silly to criticize and then refuse to read him altogether.

I’ve read 2 of his books and numerous essays. They all essentially say the same thing (sometimes, literally). You mention his ‘reason’ book. He is an apologist, right-wing lawyer and religious fanatic. I doubt that a book on ‘reason’ written by someone with his track record will be of use to any but the already brainwashed.

"The attempt to make it seem innocuous and only a means to investigate the world is a smokescreen, and you must know that."

You don't think that ID'ers want to investigate the world?

No – I think they want to gain political power and they want power because they want to inflict the country with their religio-political ideology. And the movement’s activities show that fairly clearly. If they wanted to engage in science and investigate the world, they would be funding research, not hiring public relations firms and paying their people to give lectures at churches and write propaganda books.

I see why you ignore the arguments so much, then. You just don't care about them, because you are wrapped up in "the conspiracy" that the arguments don't matter.

There are no arguments. No valid ones, anyway. Analogies and silly anti-science positions and pointing to unanswered questions are not arguments for ID for even against evolution. I don’t think there is a conspiracy at all – the ID movement is very straightforward about their true goals. The ‘science’ of ID is a sham.

"Now defend your claim that the paper IS about ID."

I already have. It's simple. It deals with agency operating at the neurophysiological level. As I've said many times, ID is, at its fundamental levels, a theory of causation.

As such, it has nothing to do with the ID of the ID movement.


"There is also the issue of your belief that bipedality should requite 40 million+ mutations."

Interestingly, I never said that.

So I take it you have given up on your naïve position regarding Haldane’s dilemma?

But you are right – you did not say directly that bipedality should require 40 million mutations. You wrote this:

“This is silly, because we know the number of mutational events between chimps and humans. Likewise, I would imagine that there would need to be at least that many changes just for going to obligate bipedalism.”

‘That many’ referring to what came previously:

“Most of the differences between chimps and humans are fixed. There are 35 million base substitution differences, as well as 5 million insertion/deletion events (totalling about 40 million nucleotides).”
 

"It is irrelevant what these people believe."

Then why did you bring it up?

"So you are attempting to justify the argument via analogy."

Apparently you are unable to differentiate arguments from analogy with arguments from shared properties. Do you think that claiming that a black object doesn't reflect light is an argument from analogy?

"What is the causal history of, say, the bacterial flagellum?"

That's what we are trying to figure out. We use things that we _do_ know the causal history of to infer the things that we _don't_ know the causal history of.

"If all it can do is tell us what we already know, what good is it to science?"

You use knowns to figure out unknowns. That's how science works.

"If they wanted to engage in science and investigate the world, they would be funding research"

That's good because they are.

"not hiring public relations firms and paying their people to give lectures at churches and write propaganda books."

This isn't specific to ID. The NCSE does this as well. In fact, they are looking to hire a theologian to propogandize evolution to church-goers, if I recall correctly.

"As such, it has nothing to do with the ID of the ID movement."

Then you've never read Dembski's The Design Inference, nor are aware of the thought of a great many ID'ers, including Philip Johnson.

"So I take it you have given up on your naïve position regarding Haldane’s dilemma?"

Nope.

"But you are right – you did not say directly that bipedality should require 40 million mutations. You wrote this"

It would have been nicer for you to link to it, so I could follow it. As I suspected, I never said anything of the sort. You left out many intervening paragraphs, including the one which had the number I was responding to. The original post is here. Here is the text (emphasis added for clarity):

-----BEGIN EXTENDED QUOTE

No it is not. It would be based on sequencing a wide range of humans. If the change exists in a wide sample of humans, it would be shown to be fixed. Most of the differences between chimps and humans are fixed. There are 35 million base substitution differences, as well as 5 million insertion/deletion events (totalling about 40 million nucleotides).

"You may have noticed that it is on a creationist site."

Yes. In fact, I wrote it. So what? Are creationists wrong by definition?

"ReMine the electrical engineer who has been misrepresenting the issue for years."

Really? I guess that's why the editors of peer-reviewed journals have been telling him they won't publish because the issue is already well-known?

"For example, he claims that 1667 fixed beneficial mutations are too few. But he does not know what traits the ancestor had!"

This is silly, because we know the number of mutational events between chimps and humans. Likewise, I would imagine that there would need to be at least that many changes just for going to obligate bipedalism.

-----END EXTENDED QUOTE

I can see where you would get confused, but it seems that clarifying to you over and over again what I think doesn't do much.

If you like pretending that other people think and feel things just because it makes you feel better to think that way (as is evidenced by your constant motive-mongering), by all means feel free to continue misrepresenting me and others.
 

No need to misrepresent overconfident nobodies. Your claims are wrong either way.

"ReMine the electrical engineer who has been misrepresenting the issue for years."

Really? I guess that's why the editors of peer-reviewed journals have been telling him they won't publish because the issue is already well-known?

Talk about misrepresentation. Did you even read ReMine's paper? I did. In fact, I know several actual scientists that did so, including a couple of the reviewers of his manuscript. It was crap. His usual non-academic "I'm so great" style, more finger-pointing than substance. What substance there was, was filler - in the end, he simply comes to an already established conclusion, which is why it was rejected. It is in his implicit applications/extensions of his claims (not directly addressed in the paper) that the real laughable hocus-pocus comes in - the real unanswered questions that you and the other ReMine worshippers cannot handle.

I will reiterate them for you - feel free to go cry to fellow non-scientist Freddie Williams if it will make you feel special -

1. What traits did the ancestral population have that must be altered by evolution?
2. What traits did the ancestral population NOT have that must be produced by evolution?
3. How many mutations would bve required to produce such changes?

There are others, but not answering at least those - as neither ReMine nor his various internet mouthpieces have done (and in fact try to belittle to avoid having to admit they cannnot answer) - indicate the vacuousness of the argument.


"For example, he claims that 1667 fixed beneficial mutations are too few. But he does not know what traits the ancestor had!"

This is silly, because we know the number of mutational events between chimps and humans.

Like that. It is not silly at all - it is (one of the ) the crux of the argument. That you cannot see that says much.

Likewise, I would imagine that there would need to be at least that many changes just for going to obligate bipedalism.

Same question - what mutations are those?
Please - with you computer-programmer's insights into all matters scientific, please explain to us poor biologist plebes just how many mutations were required to produce obligate bipedalism from an opportunistic biped (chimps and bonobos especially are often seen engaging in stable prolonged bipedalsim).
Surely, you must know which genes had to be altrered to do this, since you so confidently proclaim that at least 1667 beneficial mutations would have been required.

Or should I just chalk it up to the usual creationist embellishment/unwarranted pontification?