44 thoughts on “This is what ID does”

  4. Needs more fishing reel.

    –> FYI/FTR SFOD-D DicNavAb

    –> “we are left to discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorns ”

    –> “Thradjacking and linked vulgarity etc are small signs of a much bigger problem. Indeed abuse of curriculum development privilege is actually a token of a much bigger manifestation of the problem of such amoral, nihilist factionalism.

    If we are wise, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. END”

    –> Comments off

  5. No but seriously, there are some commonalities there. Some ID proponents are positively baffled by computer and engineering related technical jargon.

    Stick the words “complexity”, “algorithm” and “information” in the same sentence and they almost lose their minds. Add a little “interlocking” and “coordinated” on top and they’ll have to change underwear. Spice it up with “sequence”, “specified” and “multi-dimensional” and they’ll start speaking in tongues. Occasionally spray the text with some probability calculations too for good measure, and put in a diagram with lots of arrows and abbreviations (like a metabolic chart).
    Finally, you can finish it off with “digital” and “code” and that will utterly clench the deal.

    Introduction to ID-creationist interpretations of evolutionary biology papers.

    This handy little guide will help you to become a superb ID proponent by educating you on how to interpret what you read about evolution from non-ID/creationist sources.

    It will also help you understand how creationists think when they read evolution-related material and material written for them by other ID proponents. With this handy little list, you can do Bill Dembski or Stephen Meyer’s job just as well as they do it. Just look for these key-words and substitute them with the cdesignproponentsist interpretation.

    Normal word – Cdesign proponentsist interpretation:

    Rare = Never ever.
    Ulikely/improbable = impossible.
    Likely = Rare.
    Theory = Guess.
    Guess = biased wish/materialist faith (because you hate god and is afraid of his judgement).
    We don’t know = And you never will, therefore god!
    Not fully understood = not at all understood, impossible to understand, magic/miracles required.
    Unexpected result = all naturalistic/materialistic explanations ever have been falsified.
    Neutral mutation = not beneficial, therefore impossible/doesn’t exist and cannot ever be fixed in a population
    Natural Selection = Orthodox neo-Darwinistic “party line”.
    It has a chance of one in 10^11 = It has a chance of one in 10^77
    Maybe = biased guess.
    Could have = couldn’t and didn’t.
    Beneficial mutation = loss of function/trade-off and/or loss of information.
    New function = loss of information/information was already there.
    New information = no new function, was designed.
    New information and function = still belongs to the same class of enzymes (ex. hydrolases), was designed by evolution by design.
    Improved function = no new information, ability was already there.
    Mutation = destroys information, always degrades.
    Millions of years = ad hoc excuse invented to explain why we don’t see 20 million year macroevolutionary change in a few months of experimental evolution.
    Took billions of years = same excuse as above, just worse.
    Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction = *crickets*
    Molecular phylogeny = phyloschmylo, it’s more Darwinist math-tricks.
    Observation/experiment = hoax and/or only creationists properly understand the result, took place in a lab so it’s design.
    Demonstration = hoax.
    Statistics = Wat?
    Statistically significant = Nyah nyah!
    Complex = impossible to evolve, must be designed.
    Complexity/Algorithm = praise the lord!
    Information = immaterial soul-stuff that refutes materialism and all naturalistic expanations ever.
    Quantum = immaterial soul-stuff that refutes materialism and all naturalistic expanations ever. Cannot possibly evolve. We live inside the mind of god.
    Experiment shows how mutations can… = It’s still just a bacterium/fruitfly/dog-kind.
    Ape = monkey
    monkey = ape
    evolutionist = ape-monkey
    homosexuality = bestiality, nazism, incest, child-abuse and rape.
    evolution = materialism/naturalism/scientism/darwinism/chance/fair coin
    darwinism = materialist religious faith

  6. Nice find Rich!

    That helped me find this one:

    This is the first time Turbo Encabulator was recorded with picture. I shot this in the late 70’s at Regan Studios in Detroit on 16mm film. The narrator and writer is Bud Haggert. He was the top voice-over talent on technical films. He wrote the script because he rarely understood the technical copy he was asked to read and felt he shouldn’t be alone. We had just finished a production for GMC Trucks and Bud asked since this was the perfect setting could we film his Turbo Encabulator script. He was using an audio prompter referred to as “the ear”. He was actually the pioneer of the ear. He was to deliver a live speech without a prompter. After struggling in his hotel room trying to commit to memory he went to plan B. He recorded it to a large Wollensak reel to reel recorder and placed it in the bottom of the podium. With a wired earplug he used it for the speech and the “ear” was invented. Today every on-camera spokesperson uses a variation of Bud’s innovation. Dave Rondot (me) was the director and John Choate was the DP on this production. The first laugh at the end is mine. My hat’s off to Bud a true talent.

  8. Loved the video and Rumraket’s translation list. Here are two additions:

    Mutation C –> A = occurs and decreases information
    Mutation A –> C = impossible

    As far as Mr. Fishing Reel goes, has it ever occurred to him that the fancy fishing reel was developed in small steps from simpler fishing reels, going back originally to a string wrapped around a piece of wood, perhaps one that had a twig sticking out of it?

  10. Reminds me of Mr. Fishing Reels explanation of thermodynamics and how it supports ID.

    a FSCI-based energy converter through causal mechanisms traceable only to chance conditions and undirected [non-purposive] natural forces. This problem yields a conundrum for chem evo scenarios, such that inference to agency as the probable cause of such FSCI — on the direct import of the many cases where we do directly know the causal story of FSCI —

    or how about this when I parried my Light Saber agains KF’s fishing reel:

    Should ID supporters argue in terms of thermodynamics or information or [“basic . . . “] probability?

    (Just to illustrate the attitude, I remember one who accused me falsely of theft of an item of equipment kept in my lab. I promptly had it signed over to the Student Union once I understood the situation, then went to her office and confronted her with the sign off. How can you be so thin skinned was her only response; taking full advantage of the rule that men must restrain themselves in dealing with women, however outrageous the latter, and of course seeking to further wound. Ironically, this champion of the working classes was from a much higher class-origin than I was . . . actually, unsurprisingly. To see the parallels, notice how often not only objectors who come here but the major materialist agit-prop organisations — without good grounds — insinuate calculated dishonesty and utter incompetence to the point that we should not have been able to complete a degree, on our part.)
    …
    I suggest, first, that the pivot of design discussions on the world of life is functionally specific, complex interactive Wicken wiring diagram organisation of parts that achieve a whole performance based on particular arrangement and coupling, and associated information. Information that is sometimes explicit (R/DNA codes) or sometimes may be drawn out by using structured Y/N q’s that describe the wiring pattern to achieve function.

    FSCO/I, for short.
    ….

    I responded to KF:

    CLAUSIUS STATEMENT

    Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.

    I invite 2LOT proponents to use this definition of 2LOT to argue against the chance hypothesis for 500 fair coins 100% heads.

    He just obfuscated, didn’t refute my point. And then he makes this condescending remark to me:

    SalC & Mung:

    An interesting exchange; three mavericks together I’d say.

    I would note again, that for 100+ years, 2LOT has been inextricably interconnected with the statistical view at ultramicroscopic scale. It is in this context that probabilistic, informational and thermodynamics facets have been interconnected. To the point that to try to pull one aspect out in exclusion to the others is a hopeless exercise.

    What I agree with is that this stuff gets technical really fast so that only those with an adequate background should engage such in contexts where technicalities are likely to come out. You need to know enough statistics and background math, probability, classical and statistical thermodynamics and information theory to follow what is going on.

    That is a tall order and is basically calling for someone with an applied physics-engineering background with a focus on electronics and telecommunications. If you do not know what a Fermi level is or cannot address noise factor/figure or temperature, or the informational entropy of a source or why info gets a neg log probability metric, you probably don’t have enough. Likewise, if you do not know how S = k*log W [or better yet upper case Omega] means and how it comes to be that way, or the difference between a microstate and a macro state you don’t have enough. A good test is whether you can follow the arguments in chs 7 – 9 of Thaxton et al in TMLO.

    All of this is why I normally keep such matters as background. (It is only because they were put on the table again, that I have taken them up.)

    But that does not mean they should not be done.

    They should.

    “That is a tall order and is basically calling for someone with an applied physics-engineering background with a focus on electronics and telecommunications.” BS KF! I have an Electrical Engineering degree and I studied statistical mechanics and thermodynamics at the graduate level from a high tier engineering school (The Whiting School). I studied the consequence of Shannon’s theorem and was the only IDists at UD that showed the mathematical relationship of Shannon and Boltzman via a trivial equality which was confirmed by Gordon Davisson.

    Gordon Davisson’s Talk Origins Post of the Month (October 2000)

    1 Joule/Kelvin = 1 / (1.381 x 10^-23) / ln (2) Shannon Bits =

    1.045 x 10^23 Shannon Bits

    Loading up more crap on one’s wagon does not lend force and credibility to one arguments, it just piles on more crap.

    I will even amend that my claim of LLN’s defense of ID needs to be revised and corrected, but saving face and refusing to be corrected is beneath KF.

    Obfuscation is about the only defense left when one is defending and indefensible position.

    How about Upright BiPed’s “intractable” for $18 instead. KF and Upright BiPed are now the leading scientific thinkers at UD.

    All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell

    Call a spade a spade, and one gets shown the door at UD.

  11. Great. A thread for mocking! I always love these threads. They are so in the spirit of the site.

    Anti-ID’ists are so dumb they think a fishing reel is a dance performed by fishermen.

  12. Anti-ID’ists are so dumb they think CSI comes from Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and stands for Can’t See Inside.

  17. Mung@11: Great. A thread for mocking! I always love these threads. They are so in the spirit of the site.

    Who is being mocked? Did you ever notice that it is only possible to mock someone who is deserving of being mocked? Did you not notice that the same person came to everybody’s mind after watching the video? Nobody thought about you, or Barry, or William, or Sal or any other IDist. Why do you think that is?

  22. Mung,

    Do you still support Mr. Turbo Encabulator Fishing Reels 2nd law arguments or do you think he is wrong (and I am right) about the 2nd law?

    You trolled all those threads at UD backing Mr. Fishing Reels, what do you think now? Do you think you can articulate the concepts he laid out in a clear way? Do you think KF is right? Do you even comprehend what he is saying, much less be able to defend it.

    How about you uncoil this:

    a FSCI-based energy converter through causal mechanisms traceable only to chance conditions and undirected [non-purposive] natural forces.

    How about something easier, can you state in your own words what KF claims and how he supports his claims? You can go over to UD and ask him if you’re representation of what he said is accurate.

    Thradjacking and linked vulgarity etc are small signs of a much bigger problem. Indeed abuse of curriculum development privilege is actually a token of a much bigger manifestation of the problem of such amoral, nihilist factionalism.

    The one thing that KF wrote that I actually comprehend:

    I have repeatedly used an exploded view of the Abu 6500 C3 reel:

    FYI-FTR: sparc et al vs the patent reality and relevance of Wicken’s “organized systems [which] must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . .”

  23. Salvador, are you saying that I was on-topic but that you considered it trolling because I disagreed with you?

  24. It is amazing to me how spot-on my tongoue-in-cheek list of words is wrt KF. Holy crap, that dude is just gone.

  27. Mung:
    Oh no, we’re not scoffing. Not us.

    What’s wrong with scoffing at pompous blowhards who attack science they don’t understand and produce only hot air as an alternative?

  28. Richardthughes: It’s harder to scoff if you producing something good. Or, just produce something.

    What do you mean? I produce prodigious amounts of hot air. It’s not my fault you can’t put it to good use.

    Happy New Year Richardthughes. 🙂

  29. Mung,

    I asked a simple question. I’ll rephrase the basic question into parts:

    1. Do you think KF is right to argue the 2nd law is proof biological ID is true?

    2. Do you think a dead frozen rat has more or less entropy than a living human?

    2A. If you think a living human has more entropy than a dead frozen rat, then why do you think evolving biological complexity entails reducing entropy?

    If you’re unable to give coherent answers to such simple questions with “yes”, “no” , “I don’t know” then why were you bloviating and insinuating I was wrong?

    Seems to me you were eager to support KF turbo encabulator arguments for ID. Richard Hughes was spot on in regards to KF defending of ID.

    In contrast, I’ve been accused of simplistic and irrelevant arguments. I would prefer those objections rather than the suggestion I’m just obfuscating. KF’s responses to me were obfuscations, and not serious attempts at clarity (well, maybe he’s just pathologically incapable of clarity). The net result is he gives the impression of being a Turbo Encabulator salesman. I don’t like that sort of mode of communication coming from my ID associates. It doesn’t reflect well on us.

  30. Richard Hughes to Mung:

    It’s harder to scoff if you producing something good. Or, just produce something.

    Exactly! Provide something like a delta-S (change in entorpy ) calculation ! Sheesh if one is arguing the second law proves ID, you’d think such calculations wouldn’t be too much to ask. Did KF bother to even provide delta-S calculations to either refute or confirm his claims such as the ones I provided in painful detail here:

    2LOT and ID entropy calculations (editorial corrections welcome)

    Does he show up here at TSZ and see if guys who have backgrounds in Physics, Chemistry, and Electrical engineering concur. He did make the condescending remark insinuating I didn’t have the correct background. So why didn’t he bother refuting what I wrote, if not at TSZ how about at UD with one of his patented FYI-FTR posts.

    Not too much to ask for a Delta-S calculation!

    Otherwise, I think Richard Hughes is spot on about KFs posts — Turbo Encabulator salesmanship.

  32. stcordova: 1. Do you think KF is right to argue the 2nd law is proof biological ID is true?

    I don’t think anyone is right to argue that the second law is proof that biological ID is true. I also don’t recall kf ever making such an argument.

  33. stcordova: 2. Do you think a dead frozen rat has more or less entropy than a living human?

    I don’t think the question makes any sense, but if I must say one or the other I’ll go with the dead rat.

  34. stcordova: 2A. If you think a living human has more entropy than a dead frozen rat, then why do you think evolving biological complexity entails reducing entropy?

    Here’s what one site says:

    The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in terms of entropy. If a reversible process occurs, there is no net change in entropy. In an irreversible process, entropy always increases, so the change in entropy is positive.

    I do not think it is possible to violate the second law of thermodynamics, so I am going to go with I do not think evolving biological complexity entails reducing entropy.

    Hope that helps clear things up for you.

  35. Sal: Do you think a dead frozen rat has more or less entropy than a living human?

    Mung:
    I don’t think the question makes any sense, but if I must say one or the other I’ll go with the dead rat.

    My question makes perfect sense if you understood thermodynamics! Yet over yonder at UD you pretended I didn’t understand. You didn’t even answer the question, so how about this:

    S(living human) > S (frozen dead rat)

    A simple, “yes” , “no”, “I don’t know” will suffice. If you don’t understand the question, state what terms you don’t understand!

    Do you not understand entropy is a measure of something, that means it measures a quantity that can be stated in Joule/Kelvin or Shannon Bits.

    How about I make it even easier,

    do you think a living human has more entropy than a lifeless ice cube?

    If you can’t understand this, then why were you backing Mr. Turbo Encabulator’s arguments against mine regarding the 2nd law?

    I don’t think anyone is right to argue that the second law is proof that biological ID is true. I also don’t recall kf ever making such an argument.

    Do you think the 2nd law demonstrates OOL is by intelligent design?

    How about something more basic.

    Do you think the 2nd law can be used to assert 500 fair coins found 100% heads lying on a table is by intelligent design?

    If you can’t answer such basic questions, why then were you backing the Turbo Encabulator tactics Kairos Focus was using to argue against what I said?

    If you or KF won’t even do delta-S calculations, then why do you troll discussions that I participate in regarding the 2nd law if you have nothing to add but uninformed spam?

  36. Mung wrote:

    I do not think evolving biological complexity entails reducing entropy.

    So does that mean you think there are cases it is desirable to INCREASE entropy so that complexity can increase?

  37. stcordova: So does that mean you think there are cases it is desirable to INCREASE entropy so that complexity can increase?

    According to the site I quoted, entropy either does not change or it increases. That is the case whether complexity is increased or decreased and I don’t see what being desirable has to do with it. Perhaps it’s desirable to decrease complexity. Either way, entropy either does not change or it increases.

  38. stcordova: 2A. If you think a living human has more entropy than a dead frozen rat, then why do you think evolving biological complexity entails reducing entropy?

    Can you tell me where you got the idea that I thought that evolving biological complexity entails reducing entropy? Does it have something to do with order/disorder? Because I have been a long-time critic of associating entropy with order/disorder.

  39. Mung,

    I said IDists should not use the 2nd law to argue for (biological) ID. Agree or disagree?

    I said a Designed Objects Entropy must (in general) increase for Complexity to increase. Agree or disagree?

    You got on KF’s discussion and started backing his stupid arguments against my claims. You even told falsehoods like this:

    Instructive as always kf. And it doesn’t take a genius to make the connection between information theory and thermodynamics. One doesn’t even have to eat crow to see the connection. In fact, the notion has a long and distinguished history.

    I guess what puzzles me most is that Salvador, with all his multiple degrees, can’t make the connection.

    Should ID supporters argue in terms of thermodynamics or information or [“basic . . . “] probability?

    I made the connection between thermodynamics and information months earlier, heck almost a year earlier, and even while that thread was going, I made it again:

    Gordon Davisson’s Talk Origins Post of the Month (October 2000)

    2LOT and ID entropy calculations (editorial corrections welcome)

    Shannon bits refers to an information measure. Get a clue.

    So now are you changing your story that you supported my position vs. supporting Granville Sewell and Kairos Focus and Niwrad?

    Are you going to say now that ID should not use the 2nd law to argue against naturalistic evolution of life? If you say, “yes”, then why didn’t you agree with me at UD. Was trolling and disagreeing with me, even though I was right, that important to you?

    You could have said something to the effect back then, “the 2nd law is something IDists should not use. Sal is right.”

    Or are you saying you agree with KF’s Turbo Discombobulator arguments. You’re the one who slobbered over KF’s “teachings”:

    Instructive as always kf.

    KF, instructive as always?

    Can you calculate delta-S going from non-life to life after sitting at the feet of the Turbo Discombobulator Fishing Reels master? Can you calculate delta-S for simple systems of copper pennies? Has KF ever shown that he can?

    I’ve shown how to make delta-S calculations at TSZ.

    Care to dispute my calculations? Why didn’t you say anything about my calculations since KF instructed you on entropy and information theory? I even provided information measures (in Shannon Bits) in my delta-S calculations.

    “instructive as always”? As in the Turbo Encabulator talk is instructive?

    I have been a long-time critic of associating entropy with order/disorder.

    So are Niwrad and Granville Sewell wrong? They seem to swear by “entropy is a measure of disorder” shtick.

    If they are wrong, then Sal must be right. C’mon Mung, you can say it. 🙂 “Sal was right.”

  40. And to think that over on UD they have an evolutionist who agrees with entropy = order/disorder

  41. You’re right Salvador, you are smarter than me.

    But that’s really not saying much. 🙂

  42. Mung,

    Because I have been a long-time critic of associating entropy with order/disorder.

    Hey, something we agree on! (Not the fact that you have been a long-term critic thereof, but the inaptness of the association).

  43. I got one for cHristmas but can’t make it work. Do you need to add water to the frigit or just apply water to the frigit after its wet??

Leave a Reply