At Uncommon Descent, William Dembski’s and Robert Marks’s coauthor Winston Ewert has made a post conceding that using Complex Specified Information to conclude that evolution of an adaptation is improbable is in fact circular. This was argued at UD by “Keith S.” (our own “keiths”) in recent weeks. It was long asserted by various people here, and was argued in posts here by Elizabeth Liddle in her “Belling the Cat” and “EleP(T|H)ant in the room” series of posts (here, here, and here). I had posted at Panda’s Thumb on the same issue.
Here is a bit of what Ewert posted at UD:
CSI and Specified complexity do not help in any way to establish that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is improbable. Rather, the only way to establish that the bacterial flagellum exhibits CSI is to first show that it was improbable. Any attempt to use CSI to establish the improbability of evolution is deeply fallacious.
I have put up this post so that keiths and others can discuss what Ewert conceded. I urge people to read his post carefully. There are still aspects of it that I am not sure I understand. What for example is the practical distinction between showing that evolution is very improbable and showing that it is impossible? Ewert seems to think that CSI has a role to play there.
Having this concession from Ewert may surprise Denyse O’Leary (“News” at UD) and UD’s head honcho Barry Arrington. Both of them have declared that a big problem for evolution is the observation of CSI. Here is Barry in 2011 (here):
All it would take is even one instance of CSI or IC being observed to arise through chance or mechanical necessity or a combination of the two. Such an observation would blow the ID project out of the water.
Ewert is conceding that one does not first find CSI and then conclude from this that evolution is improbable. Barry and Denyse O’Leary said the opposite — that having observed CSI, one could conclude that evolution was improbable.
The discussion of Ewert’s post at UD is interesting, but maybe we can have some useful discussion here too.
BTW TWT, Please be aware of the rules on “outing” here.
While it would be nice to have people like Dembski have their papers reviewed by biologists, I don’t think peer review should be the central issue. One of the services peer reviewers render is to point out unclear points and ask for clarification. That has gradually happened over the years. We can now see that Dembski’s CSI criterion has changed since No Free Lunch, and that the change makes it untenable to use the presence of CSI to argue for Design.
The discussion of this at Uncommon Descent (thanks to the persistence and self-control of “Keith S.” and to “Learned Hand”) has led to this point being effectively raised there.
I don’t think that raising the need for peer review is helping in all this. I’d really like to see more attempts by UD people to answer the changed-CSI question, peer review or no.
Hey guys and gals, I came across something in my favorites list that I think you’ll find interesting. Don’t miss the comment posted by “secondclass” toward the bottom:
http://pro-science.blogspot.com/2007/08/out-standing-in-his-field.html
Alan Fox, I came across something that pertains to your warning to me about “outing”:
“I am not aware of any “outing” that has taken place on this blog (I should probably add a rule, which to my knowledge no-one has ever violated anyway, that the real identities of posters here should not be revealed unless of course they are widely known – my own name, for instance, is not a secret).” Elizabeth Liddle (my bold)
KF’s real name (Gordon Elliott Mullings) is widely known (in certain circles) and it is certainly no secret, in large part due to his own, continued exposure of it on his blogs and elsewhere. Just sayin’.
I’ve poked Gordon with a stick elsewhere in the past. Lizzie’s example persuaded me that, though it was amusing in a way, it it wasn’t really productive. I now make a choice. If there is any indication of the possibility of fruitful dialogue, I support it. When it becomes clear there is no possibility of dialogue, I move on.
I doubt it is possible to have any kind of meeting of minds with Gordon and life is too short to worry. I scroll over his comments at UD and would never dream of following any of his links. I doubt I’m unique in this respect. Let’s face it. His sphere of influence doesn’t extend far beyond the shores of Montserrat.
A question begging argument you can see often at UD is as follows:
1. All things that are known to exhibit CSI are designed.
2. Living things exhibit CSI.
3. Living things are designed.
Slightly less crude is the argument,
1. All things we know to be designed exhibit CSI.
2. Living things exhibit CSI.
3. Living things are designed.
That is the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Hi Joe,
I don’t have too much time for a long discussion right now, but I just stumbled across this thread and noticed that you mentioned me in one of your comments…
Can you please point me to where you think Ewert had previously contradicted my point? While it is always possible that you’re correct, I suspect that you are not. You don’t seem to have understood the point of Ewert’s “circularity” post, which was not an admission of any inherent circularity in the the use of CSI, but merely a corrective for those who misuse (or sometimes even merely misstate) the concept or argument in a circular fashion. There is nothing remotely controversial, shocking or new in Ewert’s post. The circularity does not derive from using CSI to tentatively conclude design (as your article title suggests), but from using CSI to conclude improbability. Nothing could be more obvious, since CSI is only determined to be present in some effect when it has already been found to be highly improbable on all known chance hypotheses.
Furthermore, I suspect you have misunderstood my point that you have addressed in your #1. You seem to be saying that I have claimed it is an empirical observation that natural processes cannot produce effects which demonstrate CSI. But this is not what I said. What I said was:
Do you see the difference between my actual claim and your characterization of it? It’s not that we empirically observe that natural processes cannot produce these kinds of specified effects (i.e. that it is impossible). Rather, it is that we fail to empirically observe that they can. That they can remains a possibility, but a completely unobserved one. The design inference, therefore, remains tentative. As per my original comment…
Welcome HeKS and sorry your comment was a little delayed in becoming visible. This only applies to first comments. Any other comment you feel like making should appear straight away.
@ HeKS
What do you mean when you use “CSI” (complex specified information, presumably)? Can you quantify it?
HeKS
” design is tentatively considered to be a better explanation of the effect (being the only kind of cause known to be capable of producing it)”
Can you give a natural biological example?
@Alan
Hi Alan,
While I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject (and while I’m not a math person by any stretch of the imagination), you can check out this comment I made at UD (and continue to the end of the thread) to get a good understanding of what I mean by “complex specified information” and how it factors into the logic of the design inference.
My understanding of CSI is the result of email discussions with Ewert. You will notice that the date of the comment I linked to predates Ewert’s “circularity” post at UD by a little more than a month and I certainly wasn’t surprised by anything he said in that post.
My time for carrying on discussions is highly limited right now (I’ve actually spent far too much time on it recently), and I don’t really want to worry about keeping track of discussions across multiple sites, so if you want to find me you’ll probably be able to get my attention over at UD.
Take care,
HeKS
And we have not observed a full orbit of Pluto and cannot conclude that it actually orbits the sun.
Alan,
Actually, it would probably be helpful to read the entire exchange in that thread between R0bb and myself, starting with his comment #27. A lot of issues get covered in that discussion.
petrushka,
If you think that’s a good analogy and counter-argument, I’ll leave you to it.
It’s an analogy. The counter argument would include tens of thousands of published papers consilient with evolution. and the complete failure of every ID argument.
There is only one scientific argument that could support ID, and that is Behe’s. Unfortunately, whenever Behe makes a specific statement about what evolution cannot do, he is wrong.
All the other ID arguments require Behe to be right about multi-step evolution. If Behe is incorrect, then evolution can produce complex sequences via incremental change, and improbability is irrelevant.
HeKS,
I’ve been reading here infrequently of late, but an ID proponent willing to venture out of the heavily
censoredmoderated confines of UD is not an opportunity to be wasted.With regard to CSI, is it correct to assume that you are referring to William Dembski’s formulation in “Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence”? If so, are you familiar with the issues raised with regard to the term P(T|H) in his equation for CSI? Two pertinent discussion threads here are The elep(h|t) in the room and Trojan EleP(T|H)ant?.
The summary of those discussions is that CSI is not inherently circular, although it can be and has been used in circular arguments by some ID proponents, but it is redundant. CSI is supposed to indicate the presence of “design” but the P(T|H) term is what addresses whether or not known evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing the artifact under consideration. If P(T|H) is sufficiently low, the CSI value will indicate design.
The problem, of course, is that neither Dembski nor anyone else has demonstrated how to calculate P(T|H) for a real world biological artifact. Without being able to do so, it is impossible to calculate a CSI value and therefore impossible to make a claim that an artifact not previously known to be designed is, in fact, designed.
If you have managed to perform such a calculation, please do share it here. If you have not, no claims you make based on CSI are supported.
That is the Behe problem restated.
If string B can be reached by single point mutations starting with string A, then probability is irrelevant, because populations can explore all the variations that are within one point mutation.
Behe asserts that there are sequences in real organisms (his example is resistant malaria) that cannot be reached by single (or double) mutations, because the intermediate steps would be fatal.
This is one of those assertions that can be settled by experiment, and it has been settled.
Hi Patrick,
As I mentioned, my understanding of CSI comes from discussions with Ewert, not from any particular piece of writing from Dembski. Nonetheless, I have some familiarity with the P(T|H) issue that you mention. I believe Ewert directly addressed this issue in follow-up articles at ENV.
The first follow-up article, linked from Liddle’s article, can be found here.
His second follow-up (in response to Liddle’s “Trojan EleP(T|H)ant?”) can be found here.
Take care,
HeKS
HeKS,
Thank you for providing those links. I had read them before, during the discussions I referenced here, but I just did so again to refresh my memory.
Frankly, I’m underwhelmed. At no point in either article does Ewert actually address the problem with the P(T|H) term, namely that neither he, Dembski, nor anyone else has been able to define it where H takes into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms. He dances around the problem and makes some assertions, but at the end of the day the problem remains.
I urge you to read the discussion threads associated with the two posts here I referenced. Without a mechanism for calculating P(T|H), CSI is useless. You cannot make any claims based on a metric you cannot calculate.
Hi Patrick,
I’m not discussing any particular metric. I’m discussing the logic of the design inference and how CSI fits into it. As Ewert points out, the formulation for CSI simply seeks to establish the following conditional claim:
One does not start with a declaration that CSI is present and then make an argument that natural processes are therefore improbable (this would be the kind of circular formulation that Ewert was correcting at UD). The design inference just does not make the argument that Darwinian or other naturalistic mechanisms are highly improbable. It only says that if they are then an inference to design is warranted. Again, as Ewert points out, arguments for the improbability of Darwinian (or other) mechanisms producing aspects of life come separately, as offered by Meyer, Behe, Axe, Gauger, etc.
If you don’t accept their arguments that naturalistic mechanisms are highly unlikely to produce aspects of life, like new protein folds, or complex, functionally-specified biological systems and molecular machines, then you are under no obligation to accept the design inference. But unless you are taking issue with the conditional claim of the design inference, I’m not sure what your issue is with the concept of CSI or how it fits into the logic of the design inference. If you simply want to claim that it’s too hard to calculate the probability of some effect coming about through Darwinian processes, that’s fine, but it’s a different issue that has been addressed by other people (and perhaps by Dembski too, but I am least familiar with his work as I don’t have a math background).
HeKS,
If you are referring to CSI then you are referring to the metric described by William Dembski in “Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence.” If you mean something else by those three letters, you should probably come up with an alternative name to avoid confusion.
There are two problems with this formulation. First, you need to determine the probability of the diversification of life given known evolutionary mechanisms. This is the P(T|H) term of Dembski’s equation. Second, you need to demonstrate that known evolutionary mechanisms and whatever you mean by “design” are mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. ID proponents have been remarkably reluctant to define their terms clearly enough to make that determination.
That’s both inaccurate and incorrect. As just noted, there is no demonstration that the two categories are exhaustive, primarily because no ID proponent is willing to describe in detail what is meant by “design”. It is inaccurate because Dembski’s CSI calculation includes the P(T|H) term which requires a calculation of the probability of what we observe given the existence of known evolutionary mechanisms. If that term cannot be calculated, CSI is useless.
Nothing any of those individuals has produced support any ID claims.
If they had actual evidence to support their claims, I would consider it. They do not.
The issue is that CSI, as described by Dembski, has never been calculated by him or anyone else. That means that it cannot be used to support any argument against the current scientific consensus.
Suggesting that CSI is merely a way of saying “If known evolutionary mechanisms are insufficient then the idea that some entity did something at some point in time using some technique for some reason is a reasonable explanation.” is at odds with how ID proponents have been using the supposed metric. It’s also profoundly uninteresting, since it boils down to “If what we know isn’t sufficient, something else must have happened.” Finding out what that something else is is what scientists do.
Given all this, what exactly is your point?
Allow me to clarify. I’m not addressing any particular method of calculating the improbability of Darwinian mechanisms, what that improbability is, or what actual amount of CSI might be found to exist in some biological system on any particular naturalistic hypothesis. I’m only discussing the logic of the design inference and how CSI fits into that logic. As you may recall, I only posted here for the purpose of asking Joe to point out where he thought my comment about the logic of CSI and the design inference (which it seems to me he mischaracterized) was in conflict with some statement from Ewert.
You do not need to find an actual probability in order to affirm the conditional statement made by the design inference and which I quoted from Ewert. CSI provides a construct into which one can place calculated probabilities, as Ewert does here in relation to Liddle’s test image. It does not give the probabilities themselves. Furthermore, I don’t think you need to identify the actual probability of something is grandiose as “the diversification of life”. If it turns out that the production of even a new protein domain is highly improbable given naturalistic mechanisms, the point is made, and it would apply all the more forcefully for larger scale innovations. Also, the issue becomes less difficult to manage in the context of the Origin of Life, where something like Natural Selection would not be acting.
Design is artificial. Do you not think that artificial processes and purely natural processes are mutually exclusive? If artificiality is part of the process than we are not dealing with a purely natural process.
There’s no demonstration that the range of all possible causal categories relevant to life are exhausted by the two options of 1) Darwinian and all other purely natural processes (i.e. chance, law, or a combination of the two), and 2) Processes that are, in whole or in part, artificial? I’m not sure what other causal categories you’d like to include, unless you want to argue for a natural teleology woven into the fabric of the universe, which I think Dembski has actually allowed for.
See above.
If you say so. I didn’t come here to convince you that ID is correct. I’ve stated above why I posted and I don’t have time for any drawn out discussions. I wasted weeks of time trying to get keiths to engage in a serious discussion about his objective nested hierarchy argument over at UD. I now have to turn my attention to other offline things.
For “the diversification of life”? For a complete biological system? For a protein fold? Incorporating Darwinian mechanisms or in the context of the origin of life?
Why do you say “at some point”? It seems that there is some reasonable idea of the approximate point in time at which a given thing was done. In many cases that would seem to be empirically discoverable.
Likewise, the reason something was done also seems empirically discoverable. In some cases it may be obvious, in other cases less so. But it seems more fruitful to analyze things from the perspective that they exist to serve a purpose rather than the perspective that they exist for no purpose at all. (Also, did you read the UD thread I linked Alan to earlier? I address in that thread some of the confusion that arises with respect the term “CSI” and how it has sometimes been used by different ID proponents in different contexts.)
It seems that the real problem anti-ID people often have is with the technique part. How exactly would the designer have done it? How did he or she get the right parts in the right places and in what order? I don’t consider this central to determining whether or not something was likely designed. What people don’t seem to like is that a conscious agent has a large number of choices for how they will get the right parts into the right places and in what order, and the exact methodology and order of events may simply be unrecoverable. Someone might be able to take a piece of complex machinery, infer that it was designed, discern its intended purpose, and reverse engineer it to discover exactly how it works, and yet it may still be impossible to determine exactly what method or tools, if any, the original designer used to place the parts, or in what sequence he or she placed them. Does the inability to discover this aspect of the system’s history make the determination of design or the process of reverse engineering any less useful? I don’t think so. Perhaps you do.
I’m not sure where you get the “if what we know isn’t sufficient” bit. We know that intelligent beings (i.e. us) produce functionally specified information and similar kinds of systems to those we see in living things all the time. Indeed we even have scientists who intelligently design molecular machines. The main difference is that the systems present in living organisms are far more advanced than what we are currently able to produce. On the other hand, we also know that we have never observed any natural process or mechanism actually producing any complex (in the sense of many well-matched parts), functionally specified system at all, much less one that is even at the level of sophistication that humans are currently able to produce. ID does not say, “What we know isn’t sufficient to explain life, therefore design.” Rather, it says, “We know intelligent design is sufficient to explain the kinds of systems and information we see in living organisms and, in our experience, is uniquely causally adequate to do so. On the other hand, we do not have any experience of non-intelligent causes producing these kinds of effects. Therefore, we tentatively infer that these effects are the product of intelligent activity while we continue to examine what natural processes alone seem capable of producing and what, if anything, they seem incapable of producing.”
In any case, this will likely be my last comment for the time being and I will try to force myself to let you have the last word. I may check back periodically to see if Joe has answered my original question, otherwise you can probably find me over at UD.
Thanks for the polite discussion.
Take care,
HeKS
HeKS,
I’ve actually not seen such a determination of design in detail. Could you link to or provide such?
Firstly, we do have evidence of non intelligent causes producing the diversity of life.
We also have some evidence to support the hypothesis that non intelligent causes can produce life. We don’t have any scientific evidence of a designer producing life on earth.
There is no way to justify ID as the leading hypothesis until the theory of evolution is falsified and evidence of design of life that is more compelling than evidence of natural causation is found.
IF that were done, then “conclusion” would not be an apt word with any modifier. Hypothesis.
Handwaving about “CSI” doesn’t cut it. Actual quantifiable science is required.
The only way to justify a tentative conclusion of design without positive evidence of design would be to rule out all possible natural causation and I do not see how that can be done. There is no reason to think that hypotheses *could* be exhausted, let alone to assert that they have been exhausted!
HeKS
“How exactly would the designer have done it? I don’t consider this central to determining whether or not something was likely designed”
Talking about an unknow process by an unknown entity, I would say that YES, you have to have an idea of HOW it is done to recognize it was done that way.
Besides, the point it’s not saying “It’s designed!”. The point is describing HOW IT HAPPENED!!
Theory point with evolution is not saying “It’s evolved” and that’s it. Understanding the process is helpful. Understanding the process is knowledge.
Saying “it’s designed” it’s USELESS if you don’t know by what and how.
A simple example: resistance to pesticides in insects and whale’s lungs. Two different features. Two different evolutive SPECIFIC explanations. That’s useful.
Can ID do that?
davehook:
“There is no way to justify ID as the leading hypothesis until the theory of evolution is falsified and evidence of design of life that is more compelling than evidence of natural causation is found.”
At least, ID should provide a hypothesis BEFORE being called hypothesis (leading or not).
HookE. As in Robert. Thanks. 🙂
davehooke:
“There is no way to justify ID as the leading hypothesis until the theory of evolution is falsified and evidence of design of life that is more compelling than evidence of natural causation is found.”
At least, ID should provide a hypothesis BEFORE being called hypothesis (leading or not).
Better?
HeKS,
I’m going to respond to what I think are the key points in your comment. If I leave out anything that you feel is pertinent, please point it out. I don’t want to inadvertantly quote mine you.
Thank you, I think I understand your argument now. Essentially you are summarizing Dembski’s math in English, focusing on the structure of his conditional statement. If my understanding is accurate, you are saying that Dembski’s equation for CSI means:
“If known evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficient to explain some biological artifact (that is, P(T|H) is small) then it is reasonable to conclude that artifice (design) is an explanation.”
Is this an accurate restatement of your claim?
If so, I would like to address two points. First, P(T|H) can only take into consideration known mechanisms. We can’t calculate probabilities for what we don’t know.
Second, “design” is not a clear concept in the ID world. As I noted previously, you need to demonstrate that known evolutionary mechanisms and whatever you mean by “design” are mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. ID proponents have been remarkably reluctant to define their terms clearly enough to make that determination. You responded:
I don’t agree with that distinction because it presumes its consequent. If human beings are the result of “natural” (for lack of a better term) processes, then any behavior of human beings, including whatever you mean by “design”, is also natural. Artifice is thus a subset of “natural”.
So, given that we can only compute the probabilities for mechanisms we know about and given that “natural” and “design” as used by ID proponents have not been demonstrated to be mutually exclusive or exhaustive categories, I stand by my previous statement that your claim boils down to “If what we know isn’t sufficient, something else must have happened.”
That provides no positive evidence whatsoever for ID claims.
Regards,
Patrick
HeKS,
There were a couple of other points in your last comment that aren’t directly related to the CSI discussion but that I’m interested in your views on.
What exactly do you mean by “functionally specified information”? How, exactly, can it be measured? What are its units? How much functionally specified information is there in a ferret?
We don’t know that. In fact, we know the opposite. Known evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing new functionality. If you provide a precise definition of “functionally specified information” I suspect I can provide examples of those mechanisms creating it.
But we do have evidence of known evolutionary mechanisms creating new functionality, so your inference is unwarranted.
That’s not the problem I see with ID. One of many problems with ID is that there is no evidence for any entity capable of doing what is claimed. There is no agreement on what this supposed entity did or when it did it. There is no evidence or theory for the capabilities of this unevidenced designer. There is no scientific theory of ID that has testable entailments.
The bottom line is that ID is nothing more than religious apologetics. If you disagree, please provide some actual proof for your assertions.
Hi Patrick,
I’ll try to find some time to respond tomorrow. It’s 1:18 am for me right now.
HeKS
HeKS,
This is the time of year to be enjoying your family, not arguing online! Have a happy holiday.
Patrick
HeKS, sorry to have missed your reply to me at this thread — I missed it in the new comments sidebar, and I was no longer reading this old thread. There have been many responses to you here by others since then, and so I may be repeating arguments others have made since. (I am also hobbled by WordPress suddenly not allowing me to use the (Reply) or (Quote in Reply) buttons, which seem to have vanished utterly, so I’m cutting and pasting manually).
But I’d like to deal with your comments directly, let’s take them slowly. You said early in your comment:
We are talking past each other here somehow. Dembski’s 2006 (2005?) paper includes the term P(T|H) in the formula for specified complexity. SC cannot be said to be present, by his definition, if that probability is sufficiently small to make his formula > 1. The formula involves the Universal Probability Bound that he uses.
Dembski does not use the phrase CSI in that argument, but I am taking CSI to be present when his SC calculation gets a number > 1.
The misuse of CSI (or SC as used in Dembski 2006) is to (1) start by somehow concluding that P(T|H) is very small, (2) use that to conclude that SC > 1, and then from that (3) derive the conclusion that Prob(T|H) is very small. Which is quite correct but circular. Circular arguments are at least correct!
Another misuse of CSI is to argue that we can independently decide whether or not it is present, without yet having computed P(T|H). And that once having decided it is present, some conservation law, or some empirically validated rule, shows us that natural processes could not have produced the CSI (to be more precise, have an extremely low probability of producing it). Dembski’s inclusion of P(T|H) makes it clear that you can’t conclude that his 2006 SC is > 1 unless you somehow know that term, or can put an upper bound on it.
I certainly agree with that statement. The issue is whether, when people say that natural processes cannot produce CSI, they are misstating. Let’s replace “cannot” with “are extremely highly unlikely to”. Are they being circular then? Because CSI, or Dembski’s 2006 SC, requires them to have already done the probability calculation, and already concluded somehow that the pattern is extremely unlikely to have arisen by natural evolutionary processes. To then announce that we can say that CSI/SC is present and that it allows us that conclusion is circular and silly, a dazzling bit of unnecessary technology.
I took Ewert to be agreeing with that. I take many of the pro-ID folks commenting at UD to be committing the circular argument. When Barry Arrington declares that if we could find even one case of CSI being observed due to “chance or mechanical necessity”, he is making an impossible demand, since you don’t get to declare CSI to be present unless the P(T|H) term is extremely small.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the response.
I owe Patrick a response and then I’ll get to addressing your comment. However, it will require some patience, because, as I said, I have little time for discussion right now, so it might be several days yet before I have a chance to post anything.
In the meantime, if you are able, would you mind providing specific quotes from Ewert’s UD comments (and accompanying links) that demonstrate exactly where you think the contradiction is between what he said and what I’ve said. I understand that you may take him to be saying something at any given point, but I’d like to review his words for myself.
Take care,
HeKS
Fair enough. And I will be patient and wait for your response. Thanks for your attention to this.
As for the contradiction between your statements and Ewert’s: let me be lazy and use your comment upthread here. You say that
Ewert’s “circularity” post was indeed such a corrective. It was response to the persistence and clarity of commenters “keiths” and “learned hand” (and a few others) whose efforts led to this. Ewert did not mention who at Uncommon Descent had made such circular arguments. Barry Arrington and Denyse O’Leary are two. Numerous other pro-ID commenters there have also argued that CSI is something that can be determined without any consideration of natural processes, and they have interpreted Dembski’s argument as saying that the observation of CSI establishes that there is an extremely low probability of that pattern being caused by natural evolutionary processes. Fairly clearly, on the 2006 interpretation of Dembski’s CSI argument, all those commenters were being circular — they could not establish the presence of CSI without first looking into probabilities of occurrence of the pattern under natural evolutionary processes.
If one tries to use CSI (or SC) to make the argument for intelligent design, one either engages in that circularity or one must calculate P(T|H), or at least put an upper bound on it. For biological adaptations that is hard to do. It is rarely even attempted by pro-ID commenters. One cannot simply establish the improbability of the adaptation under simple mutational processes. One needs to bring in natural selection as well.
Ewert’s acknowledgement of the circularity issue is an “admission”, because it in effect acknowledges that most attempts by pro-ID commenters to use CSI to argue for Design fell into such circularity. Ewert’s argument was not “merely a corrective” of a few misguided individuals.
Your own argument that (as you say upthread)
is a statement that once we have calculated the probability of observing the adaptation and find it to be extremely small, then it is an empirical observation that we do not see natural processes making that adaptation. Do you see why this looks circular? Why, despite Ewert’s approving reference to your argument, it looks to me as if you are falling into the very circularity that he acknowledges?
This would be a good place to start or restart the discussion. It seems to be an empirical claim, but it needs to be narrowed down. I have mentioned Behe as someone who has tried to narrow it down.
HeKS, you said:
“My time for carrying on discussions is highly limited right now (I’ve actually spent far too much time on it recently), and I don’t really want to worry about keeping track of discussions across multiple sites, so if you want to find me you’ll probably be able to get my attention over at UD.”
Yet you have plenty of time to preach in the sanctuary of UD. And if it weren’t for the heavy handed blocking and banning of ID opponents at UD, all of the discussions could take place there and you likely wouldn’t have to worry about keeping track of discussions across multiple sites. If ID-creationists actually had/have any confidence in their ‘position’, they could and would all step out of UD and other sanctuaries and face their opponents at sites where they can’t block and ban opponents for no good reason. UD and other sanctuaries may be reassuring to you and your fellow creationists but preaching to the religious choir won’t get you anywhere in science. `
“I’m not discussing any particular metric. I’m discussing the logic of the design inference and how CSI fits into it.”
That makes no sense. “CSI” is alleged, by ID-creationists, to be a scientific “metric” that supports the so-called “design inference”. In fact, without the alleged CSI metric, what is there to support “the design inference”?
“Allow me to clarify. I’m not addressing any particular method of calculating the improbability of Darwinian mechanisms, what that improbability is, or what actual amount of CSI might be found to exist in some biological system on any particular naturalistic hypothesis. I’m only discussing the logic of the design inference and how CSI fits into that logic.”
Again, that makes no sense. For “CSI” to fit into (and support) the so-called “design inference” (a poorly disguised theocratic agenda) “CSI” must be coherently defined, calculable/measurable, and reliably useful in discovering and establishing intelligent design by some so-called ‘God’, and particularly the so-called ‘Abrahamic God’ since the “design inference” was cooked up and is pushed by ‘Abrahamic God’ believers and promoters. Even IF “CSI” (aka FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I and IC) were a useful metric in discovering and establishing design and construction by humans, beavers, bees, and other Earthly life forms, that would do nothing to support the alleged intelligent design by ‘God’, of life forms or anything else in, of, or about the cosmos.
“You do not need to find an actual probability in order to affirm the conditional statement made by the design inference and which I quoted from Ewert. CSI provides a construct into which one can place calculated probabilities, as Ewert does here in relation to Liddle’s test image. It does not give the probabilities themselves. Furthermore, I don’t think you need to identify the actual probability of something is grandiose as “the diversification of life”. If it turns out that the production of even a new protein domain is highly improbable given naturalistic mechanisms, the point is made, and it would apply all the more forcefully for larger scale innovations. Also, the issue becomes less difficult to manage in the context of the Origin of Life, where something like Natural Selection would not be acting.”
More nonsense.
“Design is artificial.”
That is a matter of opinion, and definition, by humans. For example, is it natural or not that beavers ‘design’ and construct dams and lodges? Is a beaver itself artificial or natural? Where do you draw the line between artificial, natural, and purely natural?
“Do you not think that artificial processes and purely natural processes are mutually exclusive? If artificiality is part of the process than we are not dealing with a purely natural process.”
Is a beehive artificial, natural, or purely natural, and by whose or what’s opinion/definition? Is a clam’s shell artificial, natural, or purely natural? Is there a difference between natural and purely natural, and if there is, what is it?
“I didn’t come here to convince you that ID is correct. I’ve stated above why I posted and I don’t have time for any drawn out discussions.”
Dishonest.
“I wasted weeks of time trying to get keiths to engage in a serious discussion about his objective nested hierarchy argument over at UD. I now have to turn my attention to other offline things.”
Well, when you or anyone else ignores scientific evidence and methodology and tries to convince yourself and others that your religious beliefs are superior to reality, you’re going to waste a lot of time. I’m sure that the handful of reality denying ID-creationists at UD are impressed by your anti-evolution assertions though.
I’m going to post some stuff about “CSI” and how bogus a so-called scientific “metric” it is for ID. Stay tuned.
There are various ways in which I could show how bogus “CSI” is in regard to discovering and establishing (‘determining’, as IDiots would usually say it) ID but I have to start somewhere so I’ll post some stuff below and will add or amend things if necessary, but first I want to say that if or when I refer to ID I’m talking (unless otherwise pointed out) about the alleged intelligent design and creation of life forms and/or anything/everything else by a generic or particular so-called ‘designer-creator-God’. I am not talking about designs/creations by anyone or anything else since the so-called “design inference” (or ‘design theory’ as many IDiots call it) was/is based on religion/creationism, and especially on the ‘Abrahamic God’ (biblical) versions. This is going to be long, but I think it’s worth it.
Okay, here goes:
Most or all people reading this are aware of Joseph Gallien, also known as Joe G, Joseph, Joe, Jim, John Paul, ID-guy, frisbee-kid (I don’t remember if the dashes and capitalization, or lack thereof, are correct in the last two). joey, as I call him, is one of the most outspoken of the IDiots and I don’t recall any of the other IDiots, especially at UD, disagreeing with the claims that he makes in regard to ID, CSI, IC, etc., except that gordon mullings (kairosfocus) recently said to joey that FSCI, dFSCI, and FSCO/I are “subsets” of CSI. gordo and other IDiots (maybe even joey, I don’t recall) have also said that IC is a subset of CSI (or something akin to a subset). Based on what IDiots have said, CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, and IC are inextricably connected. If one fails, they all do.
joey has said a lot about ID, CSI, IC, etc., so let’s take a look at some of it (all misspellings, contradictions, and other flaws are in the originals). Some of the quotes below are taken from the same comment and/or blog page and some aren’t. I’ll separate them with dashed lines regardless of that. Technically they are ‘mined quotes’ but they are not misrepresentations of joey’s claims. All quotes are statements by joey unless otherwise pointed out.
First, read this from joey, and remember it: “”As for “unlikely” THAT ONLY PERTAINS TO YOUR POSITION. Probabilities do not apply to design as it is a given that designers know how to design what it is they are dsigning.”
———————————————-
“(not joey): “The foundation of the IDC argument is the inadequacy of natural mechanisms to account for certain natural phenomena.”
(joey’s response): “That is false. The foundation of ID is our current state of knowledge pertaining to information rich systems, irreducible complexity and specified complexity.”
——————————————-
“If something is complex, is specified and has a small probability of occurring by chance, then it exhibits specified complexity. DNA & RNA fit that bill. So doesn’t life in general.”
—————————————–
“It cannot have CSI and be less than 500 bits of SI. It can be designed and have less than 500 bits of SI.”
———————————–
“Because in order to contain CSI it must be at least 500 bits in length. It cannot contain CSI and be less than 500 bits.”
————————————-
“I think it is a bit silly to blindly follow those who spew out a number that “sounds good to me”, given the data.” (Me too, joey, LOL.)
————————————-
“The “S” in CSI stands for “specified” not “specification”.”
————————————–
“The criteria for complexity, specification and information are more rigorouly laid down than the anti-ID position.”
————————————-
“IDists have defined complexity, specification and information.”
———————————–
“If you knew anything you would know they are the same thing FSC = CSI = FSCO/I.”
————————————
“You are incapable of thought, Alan. And you sure as hell cannot demonstrate any difference between CSI and FSCI/O.”
———————————–
(not joey): “You seem to have forgotten P(H|T), Joe.”
(joey): “LoL! That refers to specification, not CSI. Also that is the EQUATION and NOT the DEFINITION you ignorant ass.”
————————————–
“FSC= Functional Sequence Complexity
According to Dembski biological specification pertains to function and we derive the number of bits for CSI from the sequence. That means for an organism to have CSI it must have FSC.”
——————————————
“William Dembski makes it clear that biological specification is CSI- complex specified information.”
—————————————
“information is neither matter nor energy”
—————————————
“First up, according to Dembski, is regularity/ necessity/ law (yes he gives you guys the laws). Next is probability- that is regularity/ necessity/ law and improbable coincidences together.”
————————————–
“probability is a complexity measurement”
————————————–
(not joey): “Is it true that Dembski included in the definition of CSI that it had a low probability of having been caused by natural forces?”
(joey’s response): “No. Dembski said that to infer intelligent design we must eliminate necessity and chance.”
—————————————–
“The term “complex specified information” is used so that people understand that the information being discussed is the same as the information used for communication and education. Science journals and textbooks are full of CSI.
It is used so that our opponents don’t try to equivocate with various misunderstandings of the word “information”. I like to head them off by telling them that CSI is just complex Shannon information that has meaning or function.
As you can see there isn’t anything in the definition that excludes unguided processes from producing CSI. That exclusion is saved for the proof of the concept that CSI only arises if an intelligent agency makes it so. Our opponents conflate the proof with the definition”
————————————–
“No one uses Shannon information to describe anything in biology. Shannon information was only for transmission and storage. Content & function are not even considered. Biological information is obviously concerned with content & function.”
———————————-
“The “C” in CSI stands for complex. Dembski’s usage of “complex” in CSI is the same asthe ordinary and everyday use of the word.”
———————————
“BTW CSI is necessary to differentiate between just specified information and specified information of a complex nature. Specified information is necessary to differentiate between meaningful/ useful information and Shannon information which does not care about content.”
———————————-
“CSI does not equate to Shannon’s use.”
———————————
“BTW Dembski did not re-define “complex”. He did not redefine “information”. If I handsd someone an encyclopedia article and asked them what information it contained they would not ask- Shannon information or Dembski information. They would read the article and report accordingly.”
———————————
“Complexity is measured with probability.
That is how one can tell it is complex.”
——————————–
“In “No Free Lunch” Dembski has a proof that necessity and chance cannot produce CSI”
——————————-
“CSI is only inadequate when in the hands of the incompetent.”
——————————-
“CSI can be measured and it is a metric.”
——————————
“We can test for IC and CSI.”
——————————
“All I know is that IC is an argument against stochastic processes and for agency involvement. So that is all it can be used for.”
——————————
“IC systems goes against what NS stands for. It is as simple as that.”
——————————
(not joey): The point is that P(T|H) is a probability measure, not a complexity measure.”
(joey): “The two are one in the same, you willfully ignorant little person.”
—————————–
“If complexity isn’t linked to probability what examples are there of complex objects, structures or events that have a high probability of occurring?”
—————————–
“If there aren’t any cases in which something complex also has a high probability of occurring then it is clear the Kolmogorov complexity and probability go hand in hand.”
—————————-
“Also improbability is a way to measure complexity.”
—————————-
“In “No Free Lunch” Dembski makes it clear that he is using the term “specified complexity” in the way it was always used, that is used by Orgel, Dawkins, Davies, and Kauffman- see page 329.
That Dembski tries to quantify it doesn’t make it different.
BTW, probability is a complexity measurement.”
———————————
“Seeing that Dembski expanded on the term specified complexity it is a given that it won’t be exactly the same. It is still exactly the same concept as Orgel, et al. used.”
——————————-
“And again CSI is defined as 500 bits or more of specified information. Shannon took care of information and specification is equivalent to meaning/ function. In the case of biology it is function- just as Dembski stated.”
——————————
“Information can be measured.
Specification can be observed and perhaps measured.
Complexity can be measured.”
———————————
“Claude Shannon provided the math for information. Specification is Shannon information with meaning/ function (in biology specified information is cashed out as biological function). And Complex means it is specified information of 500 bits or more- that math being taken care of in “No Free Lunch.””
———————————
“That is it- specified information of 500 bits or more is Complex Specified Information. It is that simple.”
——————————–
“ID does not stand on its own. It has to contrasted with necessity and chance.”
——————————–
“1- “Evolutionary mechanisms” is an equivocation
2- Shannon information is not CSI
3- IDists freely admit that blind, undirected processes can produce Shannon information”
——————————–
“Design is the mechanism.”
———————————
“Another confusion for MathGrrl is her refusal to understand that CSI pertains to ORIGINS. I provided the quotes from Dembski and Meyer but she refuses to accept it. Willful ignorance is not a good way to try to learn about something.”
——————————
“As Dembski hs written specified complexity and (C)SI refer to biological function whicis what Durston was refferring to- biological function.”
—————————–
“Dembski wroye an article in which he states that “intelligent” is just to differentiate between optimal design, apparent design and something designed by some agency.”
——————————
“If ID were true we would expect to see specified complexity, information-rich systems and/ or irreducible complexity in biological organisms.
When we test those predictions we do see specified complexity, information-rich systems and allegedly we also see IC.”
——————————
“”New CSI” is NOT the same as the origin of CSI.
See page 162 of NFL.
CSI is all about the ORIGIN of the complex specified information.
IOW the ORIGIN of CSI requires intelligence. New CSI can come about by rearranging existing CSI.”
——————————
“ID does not deal with Shannon info as Shannon info is not concerned with meaning or content. CSI (in ID) is all about content and meaning.”
—————————–
“For those of you who don’t know Shannon, he provided us with a way to measure information. He did not care about meaning. So Kevin thinks that he said that information doesn’t have any meaning.
However when Kevin chose a definition for “information”, he posted one that is all about meaning.
He is too stupid to know what he did.
No Kevin, Shannon just didn’t care- his measuremnet system doesn’t care about meaning. That is why most scientists who use his concept refer to it as “information carrying capacity”- as in this “message” is 100 bits in length , which means it has the information carrying capacity of 100 bits. We don’t know if there is actually any information in it.
We cannot meaure meaning. And no, IDists do not try to measure meaning/ functionality- Kevin is lying, again, when he says that.
As I told Kevin, meaning/ functionality is OBSERVED, and then we can measure the amount of information by counting the bits.
All of that said, to avoid confusion, IDists use the terms Specified Information and Complex Specifed Information to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has meaning/ functionality. Does kevin ever mention that? No, because he is an ignorant punk on an agenda.”
—————————–
“In the end only a moron would think that IDists try to calculate meaning.”
—————————-
“IDists use the terms Specified Information and Complex Specifed Information to differentiate between Shannon Information and information that has meaning/ functionality.”
—————————–
“AGAIN, DUMBASS, WE DO NOT CALCULATE THE MEANING. You are just an ignorant asshole.
The FUNCTION of a protein is an OBSERVATION. You know, the very thing that science relies on- making observations and then explaining what you observed/ are observing.
Biological information is all about function. And IDists have made this abundantly clear. And yes, we can and have calculated the information in functional sequences.
So AGAIN- Function/ meaning is an OBSERVATION. We can then use Shannon’s methodology to see how much information is present.
As I said and have been saying (C)SI is Shannon Information with meaning/ function.”
——————————-
“That is why there is CSI- to differentiate- are you this much of an ass in person?”
——————————-
“Claude Shannon was only interested in the transmission and storage of “information”. However “information” as he defined it does not care about content. He was concerned about optimal transmission speed so a sequence of 100 random characters has more “information” than a meaningful and informative (new knowledge) statement containing fewer characters.
For Shannon the longer any sequence is the more complex it is, regardless of the sequence itself.
He was looking at the performance of transmitting (receiving) and storing the “data”, whatever that may be.”
——————————–
“I say that living organisms and information transcend matter, energy, necessity and chance.”
———————————
(not joey): “So Joe – if we remove the matter and the energy from an organism, what’s left?”
(joey): “Information and life- the other two fundamental entities.”
——————————-
“Agenct trancends matter, energy, necessity and chance because it is not reducible to them- just as information is not reducible to matter and energy- hey a two-fer.”
——————————-
“On Shannon Information and measuring biological information:
The word information in this theory is used in a special mathematical sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information must not be confused with meaning.- Warren Weaver, one of Shannon’s collaborators
Is what Weaver said so difficult to understand?
Kolmogorov complexity deals with, well, complexity. From wikipedia:
Algorithmic information theory principally studies complexity measures on strings (or other data structures).
Nothing about meaning, content, functionality, prescription. IOW nothing that Information Technology cares deeply about, namely functional, meaningful, and useful information. Not only Information Technology but the whole world depends on Information Technology type of information, ie the type of information Intelligent Design is concerned with.
And both Creationists and IDists make it clear, painfully clear, that when we are discussing “information” we are discussing that type of information.
And without even blinking an eye, the anti-IDists always, and without fail, bring up the meaningless when trying to refute the meaningful. “Look there is nature producing Shannon Information, you lose!”- ho-hum.”
—————————–
“Now what do we do when all we have is an object?
One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it.
Then you write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits. The point is that you have to capture the actions required and translate that into bits. That is if you want to use CSI. However by doing all of that you have already determined the thing was designed Now you are just trying to determine how much work was involved.
But anyway, that will give you an idea of the minimal information it contains- Data collection and compression (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control).
CSI is a threshold, meaning you don’t need an exact number. And it is a threshold that nature, operating freely has never been observed to come close to. Once CSI = yes you know it was designed.”
——————————–
“CSI is NOT the tool I would use for an object, as I have said many times already.”
——————————-
“A definition is a real object.”
(Hey joey, does that include a definition of an aardvark? ROFLMAO!)
———————————
“Actually I claim that CSI is defined by Wm. Dembski. I even referenced the relevant material.”
——————————–
“And again CSI is defined as 500 bits or more of specified information. Shannon took care of information and specification is equivalent to meaning/ function. In the case of biology it is function- just as Dembski stated.”
————————————-
I’ll continue in another comment. Some or all of you might be thinking: Yeah, but joey is just a belligerent moron who doesn’t ‘officially’ speak for ID or CSI, and you haven’t shown that CSI is bogus no matter which IDiot promotes it. I’ll go beyond joey in another comment.
In the meantime, by looking at the quotes above, can any of you see the glaring problem with so-called CSI, at least when it comes to joey’s claims?
Yeah, but joey is just a belligerent moron who doesn’t ‘officially’ speak for ID or CSI, and you haven’t shown that CSI is bogus no matter which IDiot promotes it.
😉
Joey can’t solve a problem in first year algebra. He is going to lecture on mathematics?
Now I’m going to show some things that Meyer and Dembski have said.
First, Stephen Meyer (at ENV):
“Thus, the inadequacy of proposed materialistic evolutionary causes or mechanisms forms only part of the basis of the argument for intelligent design. We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems and integrated circuitry. We have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause sufficient to generate new specified information and integrated circuitry, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information or circuitry arises. We know from experience that conscious, rational agents can create such information-rich structures and systems. To again quote information theorist Henry Quastler: “creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” Indeed, whenever large amounts of specified or functional information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence — intelligent design — played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter a large discontinuous increase in the functional information content of the biosphere as we do in the Cambrian explosion, we may infer — based on our knowledge of established cause-effect relationships — that a purposive intelligence operated in the history of life to produce the functional information necessary to generate those forms of animal life.
Instead of exemplifying a fallacious form of argument in which design is inferred solely from a negative premise, the argument for intelligent design formulated in Darwin’s Doubt takes the following form:
Premise One: Despite a thorough search and evaluation, no materialistic causes or evolutionary mechanisms have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified or functional information (or integrated circuitry).
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified/functional information (and integrated circuitry).
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the specified/functional information (and circuitry) that was necessary to produce the Cambrian animals.
The second affirmative premise in this argument makes clear that the design argument in Darwin’s Doubt does not constitute an argument from ignorance, nor is it a “purely negative” argument. Indeed, in addition to showing that various materialistic causes lack demonstrated causal adequacy, my argument for intelligent design also affirms the demonstrated causal adequacy of an alternative cause, namely, intelligence. My argument does not omit a premise providing positive evidence or reasons for preferring an alternative non-materialistic cause or proposition.
In fact, the argument for intelligent design developed in Darwin’s Doubt constitutes an “inference to the best explanation” based upon our best available knowledge. As I note in Chapter 17 of the book, to establish an explanation as best, a historical scientist must cite positive evidence for the causal adequacy of a proposed cause. Unlike an argument from ignorance, an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation merely on the basis of the inadequacy of some other causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its established — its known — causal adequacy, and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy, despite a thorough search, of any other adequate cause. The inference to design, therefore, depends on present knowledge of the causal powers of various materialistic entities and processes (inadequate) and intelligent agents (adequate).”
And Dembski (in No Free Lunch):
“To define CSI requires only the mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax or theory of meaning is required.
In particular, the intelligent agent need not assign a meaning to the pattern.
Neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other. This in my view is a tremendous asset of CSI, for it allows one to detect design without necessarily determining the function, purpose, or meaning of a thing that is designed (which is not to say that function, purpose, or meaning may not be useful in identifying a specification, but they are not mandated).”
And:
“Specified complexity is, as we have seen in the previous chapters, a form of information, though one richer than Shannon information.”
And:
“Shannon’s theory focuses exclusively on the complexity of information without reference to its specification. Consequently, Shannon’s theory underwrites no design inference.”
And:
“Shannon’s theory focuses exclusively on the complexity of information without reference to its specification.”
———————————————
Think about those, and joey’s comments above, and I’ll be back later with more to say about “CSI”.
Just checking in to say I haven’t forgotten about the replies I promised here but unfortunately I haven’t had time to finish them yet, though they are well along.
Creodont2, I didn’t even bother to read all of your comments at this point. You pointed out that I said I don’t have time for drawn out discussions at the moment but then said I have plenty of time to talk at UD. Well, you’re mistaken. I did talk a lot at UD when I had time to do so, but since I first commented here and mentioned that I don’t have much time to talk right now because I’ve gotten busy on other offline things I believe I’ve only made one comment at UD and it mostly consisted of copying and pasting something to clarify an issue for someone. I’ve barely even had time to read at UD much less participate. If you want to think I’m being dishonest, you’re welcome to your opinion. It doesn’t much matter to me. But at least now you’ve been informed.
Glad to see you back, HeKS. Happy new year!
Consider everything I’ve posted so far, including these:
(joey): “Actually I claim that CSI is defined by Wm. Dembski. I even referenced the relevant material.”
——————————–
(joey): “And again CSI is defined as 500 bits or more of specified information. Shannon took care of information and specification is equivalent to meaning/ function. In the case of biology it is function- just as Dembski stated.”
—————————–
So, joey relies on Dembski’s definition/description of CSI, except when joey doesn’t rely on Dembski’s definition/description of CSI:
(not joey): “1. You didn’t know that the “complexity” part of “specified complexity” means improbability.”
(joey): “Umm that is only how Wm Dembski characterizes it. People understood complexity well before he was born. He was looking for mathematical “proof”.”
(not joey): “2. You didn’t know that specificity increases with descriptive simplicity.”
(joey): “Again I understand how Dembski states it and I also understand that he is not the final authority.”
(not joey): “You think that ID has nothing to do with Shannon information, when in fact it does.”
(joey): “Perhaps only as an example of what not to look for when considering design.”
(not joey): “You think that CSI is all about content and meaning, when in fact it isn’t.”
(joey): All Dembski is saying is that CSI can be determined without consideration of the content. However the way IDists talk about CSI it is obvious that it is all about content and meaning. Again I refer you to Stephen C. Meyer’s essays- for a start.
And again- no one is saying that everyone has to do things exactly as Wm Dembski tells us.”
Please read this entire thread: http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-there-theory-of-intelligent-design-i.html
There’s more to come. Stay tuned. 🙂
Okay, I have more that I can post about joey’s, dembski’s, and meyer’s incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory, unsubstantiated claims about “CSI” but I’ll get to a point that I want to make and I’ll put it in the form of a question:
When IDiots claim that they can calculate/measure so-called “CSI” in ‘bits’, and that a minimum of 500 ‘bits’ is required for it to be “CSI”, what is it that they are actually calculating/measuring in ‘bits’?
Would any IDiots who are reading this like to answer that question?
In my next comment I’ll get to more of the points that I want to make about the bogosity of “CSI”. In the meantime here is a series of recent comments from joey’s unintelligent blabbering blog that are pretty entertaining (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17489641&postID=4794590918609128989&page=1&token=1420805724702):
(William Spearshake): For something to be specified, you need a specifier.
(joey): Prove it.
(joey): Not surprising but the evoTARDs just cannot stay on topic. Not only that they can’t even defend the claims of their position.
(joey): OK wait- snowflakes are specified and their specifier would be the proper (weather) conditions.
The specifier of living organisms would be the designer- be it intelligent or not. ID says it was intelligent and offers up a methodology. Our opponents say the designer was mother nature and the blind watchmaker but only offer up bald declarations and attack any and all who disagree.
William Spearshake quoting joey): “OK wait- snowflakes are specified…”
(William Spearshake): Prove it.
(William Spearshake quoting joey): “OK wait- snowflakes are specified and their specifier would be the proper (weather) conditions.”
(William Spearshake): This is just a bald assertion. Please provide evidence. Is this testable? Given specific and well controlled conditions, can you predict the exact shape of the snow flake? If you can, you can write your own ticket at any university. But you can’t.
(joey): LoL! Science has proven crystals are specified you ignorant asshole. And only an ignorant asshole would want more evidence that it snows, and here you are.
(William Spearshake): I’m confused.
When I suggested on “uncommonly dense” (before they banned me) that snowflakes were an example of CSI that wasn’t the result of an intelligent agent, you called me an ignorant asshole. Now you are calling me an ignorant asshole for stating that snowflakes are not an example of CSI.
Has anyone ever told you that consistency of message is important? Sorry for the rhetorical question.
(joey): LoL! There is a HUGE difference between CSI and mere specification. Even Dembski admits that crystal are an example of specification- a snow flake is either a single ice crystal or an aggregation of ice crystals.
But thank you for proving that you are ignorant.
Creodont2,
I’m looking forward to your future posts on CSI. I don’t think it is fair, however, to post comments from Joe when he does not have the right of reply in this forum.
Plus, quoting him lowers the average quality of comments here.
Now, let’s take a look at some things that stand out in IDiotic claims about “CSI”:
Notice in the claims by joey that meaning or function is the key thing that separates “CSI” from Shannon information, and that joey equates “meaning” with “function”.
Look at this again (from one of my comments above):
(not joey): “You think that ID has nothing to do with Shannon information, when in fact it does.”
(joey): “Perhaps only as an example of what not to look for when considering design.”
That comment from joey and many others from him show that he is claiming that Shannon information is not only not “CSI” but that it has nothing to do with “CSI”, yet he also claims that “CSI” is Shannon information with ‘meaning/function’.
Stephen Meyer (from one of my comments above): “We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems and integrated circuitry.” (my bold)
And: “We know from experience that conscious, rational agents can create such information-rich structures and systems.” (my bold)
And: “Indeed, whenever large amounts of specified or functional information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence — intelligent design — played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter a large discontinuous increase in the functional information content of the biosphere as we do in the Cambrian explosion, we may infer — based on our knowledge of established cause-effect relationships — that a purposive intelligence operated in the history of life to produce the functional information necessary to generate those forms of animal life.” (my bold)
And: “Despite a thorough search and evaluation, no materialistic causes or evolutionary mechanisms have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified or functional information (or integrated circuitry).”
And: ” Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified/functional information (and integrated circuitry).” (my bold)
And: “Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the specified/functional information (and circuitry) that was necessary to produce the Cambrian animals.”
Dembski (from one of my comments above): “To define CSI requires only the mereological and statistical aspects of information. No syntax or theory of meaning is required.
In particular, the intelligent agent need not assign a meaning to the pattern.
Neither CSI nor semantic information presupposes the other. This in my view is a tremendous asset of CSI, for it allows one to detect design without necessarily determining the function, purpose, or meaning of a thing that is designed (which is not to say that function, purpose, or meaning may not be useful in identifying a specification, but they are not mandated).” (my bold)
And: “Specified complexity is, as we have seen in the previous chapters, a form of information, though one richer than Shannon information.” (my bold)
And: “Shannon’s theory focuses exclusively on the complexity of information without reference to its specification. Consequently, Shannon’s theory underwrites no design inference.”
And: “Shannon’s theory focuses exclusively on the complexity of information without reference to its specification.”
So, joey asserts that ‘meaning/function’ is required for “CSI” to be CSI” and Meyer obviously thinks so too. Dembski says that ‘meaning/function’ is not required for “CSI” to be “CSI” but he also says that specified complexity (aka “CSI” to IDiots) is “a form of information, though one richer than Shannon information”. (my bold)
I think it’s fair to say that when it comes to so-called “CSI” all IDiots rely on ‘information’ that has ‘meaning’ (or ‘function’ or ‘specification’ or ‘purpose’ or whatever other word they feel like adding and defining in various ways). They say that “CSI” is not Shannon information, has nothing to do with Shannon information, or that “CSI” is Shannon information with ‘meaning’ or ‘function’ or whatever, or that “CSI” has nothing to do with ‘meaning’ or ‘function’ or whatever, or that “CSI” is “richer” than Shannon information, that “CSI” has nothing to do with “specification”, or that “CSI” has a lot or everything to do with ‘specification’, and TONS of other incoherent, inconsistent, contradictory CRAP about “CSI”.
Also be sure to notice something that Meyer said: “large amounts”.
Let’s revisit the question I asked above: When IDiots claim that they can calculate/measure so-called “CSI” in ‘bits’, and that a minimum of 500 ‘bits’ is required for it to be “CSI”, what is it that they are actually calculating/measuring in ‘bits’?
Is the answer ‘Shannon information’?
Keep this in mind, from Dembski: “Consequently, Shannon’s theory underwrites no design inference.”
I have some other questions: Is Shannon ‘information’ actually information or is it data? Is ‘Shannon information’ even data or can it be gibberish?
No offence intended to Creo, but this isn’t the best forum in which to discuss Joe. Especially since he is banned.
Patrick, I just now saw your comment.
You said: “I’m looking forward to your future posts on CSI. I don’t think it is fair, however, to post comments from Joe when he does not have the right of reply in this forum.
Plus, quoting him lowers the average quality of comments here.”
I have wondered if anyone would say that it’s not fair for me to post comments by joey. Since I have done so it must be obvious that I disagree with that. joey caused his own well deserved banishment here and I feel that his comments are important to my exposure of the bogosity of “CSI” because he is one of the most outspoken IDiots when it comes to promoting “CSI”. I also feel that the ‘onlookers’ here should see some of the assertions that joey makes.
I would post my comments directly to joey on his blog but he won’t let me, even though he calls me and every other non-IDiot a coward (and a lot of other false things). He also rarely if ever responds to my questions/comments directed to him at AtBC, where he does have the privilege of response. I understand your sense of fair play but I don’t feel that joey deserves any fair consideration whatsoever. I don’t expect you to agree with me but I hope that you will try to understand why I feel the way I do.