352 thoughts on “Wagner’s Multidimensional Library of Babel (Piotr at UD)”

1. William J. Murray: If one cannot admit these things, as I said, honest debate about ID is simply not possible.

   You’ve had a decade to debate ID. Why are you attempting to debate it here, when you said that the only question is how much of evolution requires ID beyond what humans are known to have been responsible for?

   What is there to debate? What value is there in further debate? The only way you’ll progress ID is to do some actual work, not endless debates.

2. And that “explosion” William – I must of missed where you said how long it was and why it could only be the product of ID.

3. Eric,

   1. If you wish to deny that cryptography is an attempt to uncover purposeful, intelligently-designed and placed codes;

   2. If you wish to deny that forensics is in the business of determining if various events are best explained via natural causes or intelligently produced, or by accident or deliberate intent,

   3. If you wish to deny that SETI is the search for signals best explained by an intelligent cause,

   Then I’m satisfied that any impartial readers have enough information to judge for themselves the value of your input and where the real obstacle to honest debate about ID lies.

4. William J. Murray: Then I’m satisfied that any impartial readers have enough information to judge for themselves the value of your input and where the real obstacle to honest debate about ID lies.

   Speaking of honest debate, what is the evidence that ID was involved in the Cambrian explosion?

   Speaking of honest debate, how long did the Cambrian explosion actually take?

   Here, let me remind you of your own words:

   The only relevant question is if specific claims of ID causation can be supported/falsified, and they can be.

   —

   In any event, we do have evidence of an apparent massive insertion of unprecedented functional information (body plans) in a relatively short span of time: it’s called the Cambrian Explosion.

   and expect anyone to take you seriously.

   Please support/falsify that claim or withdraw it.

   You do have evidence? What is it? Or is your evidence merely the “insufficiency” of something else, not actually related to ID in any way”? Hardly evidence for ID is it?

5. Forensics must hold that certain features of a theoretical crime scene are best explained by an intelligent cause or else it cannot reach a conclusion that any crime has occurred at all.

   Obviously, the kinds of crimes we tend to investigate involve people; otherwise, extremely tenuous. We look for evidence linking specific individuals to an incident. We don’t look for signs that the evidence points to ‘intelligence’, despite some basic level of the commodity tending to be an unavoidable accompaniment of personhood. If bite marks indicate human rather than dog, it is not the fact that the human is an ‘intelligent cause’ that is the distinctive basis.

   [Cryptography] Of course it does, otherwise there would be reason to suspect there was a purposeful secret code embedded in the messages.

   Messages, encrypted or not, are all sent by people. There is no attempt to distinguish ‘intelligent cause’ from any other – to distinguish messages not sent by people.

   [SETI] holds that certain potential features of incoming signals would be best explained by intelligent causes, otherwise their search would be futile.

   That’s closer, but still no banana. SETI is looking for a signal (that it is accepted up front may not actually exist – for example, we could be alone). The signal looked for is one that we ourselves might be capable of producing. We already know that such beings exist; just not outside of Earth. We are looking for a signal that is ‘best explained’ by an alike intelligence, and that signal is most likely a simple, narrow-band one, not one whose intense complexity speaks to great intelligence. In SETI, simplicity is the ‘improbable’ state, not complexity. An assumed artefact used for communication is a different beast entirely from one used to …. survive and reproduce. In that sense, SETI and ID are polar opposites, in what they seek . SETI shares nothing with ‘ID theory’.

6. William J. Murray: If you wish to deny that cryptography is an attempt to uncover purposeful, intelligently-designed and placed codes

   You seem to be confused between “cryptography” and “cryptanalysis”.

   In any case, cryptanalysis is concerned with breaking the code. Whether or not the code was intelligently designed is not a cryptographer’s concern.

   If you wish to deny that forensics is in the business of determining if various events are best explained via natural causes or intelligently produced, or by accident or deliberate intent

   Forensics is usually concerned with identifying specific causes. It is not addressing the question “did some unknown agent do it?”

   If you wish to deny that SETI is the search for signals best explained by an intelligent cause,

   I doubt that SETI people would describe it that way. At least, SETI actually is a methodology for getting data, which is something that’s missing in ID.

7. William J. Murray:
   Eric,

   1.If you wish to deny that cryptography is an attempt to uncover purposeful, intelligently-designed and placed codes;

   2. If you wish to deny that forensics is in the business of determining if various events are best explained via natural causes or intelligently produced, or by accident or deliberate intent,

   3. If you wish to deny that SETIis the search for signals best explained by an intelligent cause,

   Then I’m satisfied that any impartial readers have enough information to judge for themselves the value of your input and where the real obstacle to honest debate about ID lies.

   And who gets to decide who’s impartial? Just you?

   In this case, there’s no impartiality needed because you are not even properly participating in the debate. You are just dodging answers.

   To give you another opportunity, here are the questions again:
   1. Can you show in a book about forensics where they talk about “an intelligent cause”? Which source tells that ID theory has contributed to forensics?
   2. Where does cryptography talk about “purposeful code” and “an intelligent cause”? Which source tells that ID theory has contributed to cryptography?
   3. Where do SETI researchers talk about “an intelligent cause” and ID theory’s contribution to their research?

   But here’s a much simpler question: What/Who is an intelligent cause? An example, thanks. Even this simple but crucial question has been conspicuously evaded throughout the history of the so-called ID theory.

8. Neil Rickert said:

   You seem to be confused between “cryptography” and “cryptanalysis”. Whether or not the code was intelligently designed is not a cryptographer’s concern.

   No, Neil, you’re the one that seems to be confused. The definition of cryptography from Merriam Webster:

   the enciphering and deciphering of messages in secret code or cipher; also : the computerized encoding and decoding of information

   Neil continues:

   Whether or not the code was intelligently designed is not a cryptographer’s concern.

   That’s because he/she assumes it is, otherwise there is no reason to look for a “code”. Unless you are going to argue that cryptographers also attempt to “break” codes written by chance/natural law? Or, perhaps it is your position that given information to work with, a cryptographer would be unconcerned with whether or not the kind of code he/she was attempting to break was caused by chance, natural law, or an intelligent agency?

   Perhaps you think that a cryptographer’s conclusion shouldn’t differentiate between results likely generated by chance, natural law, or apparent intelligent agency?

   If that is your position, I’m happy to leave it to impartial observers to make of it what they will.

9. Allan Miller aid:

   Obviously, the kinds of crimes we tend to investigate involve people; otherwise, extremely tenuous. We look for evidence linking specific individuals to an incident.

   Only after we have ruled out “natural causes” as best explanation. First comes the categorical distinction between chance/nature and ID (remember, ID is a category of causes), then comes a more detailed investigation based on that initial categorical finding. There’s no reason to begin looking for specific individuals unless ID is determined to be the best causal category in the first place.

   We don’t look for signs that the evidence points to ‘intelligence’, despite some basic level of the commodity tending to be an unavoidable accompaniment of personhood.

   Using any semantic variants you can doesn’t change the fact that forensics initially makes categorical distinctions between classes of probable causes before continuing the investigation. Substituting “personhood commodity” or “human engineering” for “intelligent design” doesn’t change the nature of the category; it only avoids admitting what it is.

10. William J. Murray: Using any semantic variants you can doesn’t change the fact that forensics initially makes categorical distinctions between classes of probable causes before continuing the investigation. Substituting “personhood commodity” or “human engineering” for “intelligent design” doesn’t change the nature of the category; it only avoids admitting what it is.

    It won’t trouble you then to show where anything like that was done for the Cambrian explosion

    In any event, we do have evidence of an apparent massive insertion of unprecedented functional information (body plans) in a relatively short span of time: it’s called the Cambrian Explosion.

    Do tell what categorical distinctions between classes of probable causes were performed before you came to the conclusion of *design*.

    Or continue to ignore questions you can’t answer. The lurkers, who you are so fond of, will draw their own conclusions.

11. William J. Murray,

    Using any semantic variants you can doesn’t change the fact that forensics initially makes categorical distinctions between classes of probable causes before continuing the investigation. Substituting “personhood commodity” or “human engineering” for “intelligent design” doesn’t change the nature of the category; it only avoids admitting what it is.

    Making ‘distinctions between classes of probable cause’ is a very common part of general empirical investigation. If you are reducing the connection between forensics and ID to that trivial level, you really are struggling. ‘It’ – that which forensic analysis investigates – is not ‘intelligence’, but the involvement of people.

12. William,
    Design is real. It can be detected. That’s not the “debate”. The debate is what evidence you have for ID in the creation or evolution of biological life.

    If you wish to deny that forensics is in the business of determining if various events are best explained via natural causes or intelligently produced, or by accident or deliberate intent

    So far all you have is wordplay. About that explosion…

    It seems you’d rather talk about forensics then ID and biology.

    Tell you what, you’ve convinced me. Forensics and archaeology and SETI are all examples of ID in action.

    Now, *please* move to the ID and biological life slide!

13. ‘It’ – that which forensic analysis investigates – is not ‘intelligence’, but the involvement of people.

    No; forensics doesn’t just investigate the involvement of people; it investigates the probability that an event was likely deliberate or planned. People can be involved in accidents; the difference between that and an investigation into a possible murder or arson depends on if the initial evidence indicates that not only were “people” involved, but if the evidence indicates deliberate intent.

    BTW, one would think that if the connection of ID to forensics, cryptography and SETI was so trivial, anti-ID advocates wouldn’t work so hard to avoid that “trivial” connection. It is, in fact, trivially obvious that forensics, cryptography and SETI employ ID as a potential causal category – despite semantic (and ludicrously transparent) attempts to avoid the terms “intelligent” and “design”.

14. William J. Murray: BTW, one would think that if the connection of ID to forensics, cryptography and SETI was so trivial, anti-ID advocates wouldn’t work so hard to avoid that “trivial” connection. It is, in fact, trivially obvious that forensics, cryptography and SETI employ ID as a potential causal category – despite semantic (and ludicrously transparent) attempts to avoid the terms “intelligent” and “design”.

    I accept all your points. It’s all Intelligent Design.

    Now, about that explosion and the evidence you have for ID’s involvement in it.

    Or you could go on about forensics and what it is and is not and how it relates to ID. You know, anything to avoid actually talking about ID and the evidence you *claim* to have for it’s involvement with life.

15. William J. Murray: BTW, one would think that if the connection of ID to forensics, cryptography and SETI was so trivial, anti-ID advocates wouldn’t work so hard to avoid that “trivial” connection.

    Given that you’ll never be corrected on anything, it’s likely what you perceive as attempts to dispute that connection are just attempts to correct your misunderstandings.

    I’d give up on that, as what does it gain you even if you “win”? And concentrate on the evidence for ID.

    You mentioned that you had evidence for ID’s involvement in pre-history. What is it please?

16. No; forensics doesn’t just investigate the involvement of people; it investigates the probability that an event was likely deliberate or planned

    No it doesn’t. You’ve been watching too much CSI. Forensics does not investigate intent. It provides raw data for police and courts. Perhaps you could find a forensic scientist who could back your claims up.

    BTW, one would think that if the connection of ID to forensics, cryptography and SETI was so trivial, anti-ID advocates wouldn’t work so hard to avoid that “trivial” connection.

    It is simply that it is bogus to claim that forensics, SETI and cryptography are examples of ‘ID theory’ in action. Therefore it is legitimate to argue against the attempt to claim these fields as some kind of validation of ‘ID’. The fact that there is a trivial connection with intentional agents and communication between them is the whole point – the ID claim on biology is definitely not a trivial one. It is equivocation, pure and simple, to try and make this link. As well as dishonest, given the complete lack of involvement of ID theorists in any of those fields, and the complete lack of application of techniques in the reverse direction. One may as well claim detection of a shout on the wind as validation of the ID approach. Just as trivial, and just as irrelevant.

    Get cracking on the Cambrian explosion. What forensic technique tells us that body plans only appear suddenly due to intent?

    It is, in fact, trivially obvious that forensics, cryptography and SETI employ ID as a potential causal category – despite semantic (and ludicrously transparent) attempts to avoid the terms “intelligent” and “design”.

    If it is so trivial, why expend any energy at all trying to make or pursue the connection? How does the possibility of agency involvement in those fields help with the Cambrian Explosion?

17. No wait, are you anti-IDists saying that forensics does not rule out evolutionary causes in order to determine that intelligence was involved in a purported crime?

    Because I’m thinking that ID would probably even be capable of ruling out the direct effects of evolution in such cases. Well, at least a good solid maybe.

    Glen Davidson

18. It is, in fact, trivially obvious that forensics, cryptography and SETI employ ID as a potential causal category – despite semantic (and ludicrously transparent) attempts to avoid the terms “intelligent” and “design”.

    Since you cite these as examples of ID detection, you are no doubt aware that the detection is done by assuming the phenomena are the result of human or humanoid beings. You are no doubt aware that when we find something not made by humans, such as fossil worm tracks or fossil stromatolites, we analyze them by comparing them to artifacts made my contemporary organisms.

    All of which make it mysterious that the ID movement avoids saying anything about the attributes or capabilities of their putative designer. What we do in forensics is try to match the phenomenon to the means and motives of known actors.

19. Piotr Gasiorowski:
    Allan Miller,

    APE > ATE > MATE > MAT > MAN
    APE > ARE > MARE > MAR > MAN
    APE > ARE > MARE > MANE > MAN
    APE > NAPE > NAP > MAP > MAN
    APE > RAPE > RAP > RAN > MAN
    APE > ALE >MALE > MANE > MAN
    APE > GAPE > GAP > MAP > MAN
    etc., etc., etc.

    Gorblimey, higher dimensions make evolution too easy!

    There’s probably a good paper here somewhere on the distribution of “paths” in terms of length, dimensions, etc between randomly selected words.

20. William seems to have lifted his ideas from this blurb at John Calvert’s “ID net” (reproduced at Uncommon Descent):

    The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion that can be adequately explained by only natural causes.

    In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

    ID is controversial because of the religious implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
    –

    Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
    –

    Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

    Note that “cryptanalysis”, William!

    To claim “ID” is the science of design detection seems pretty disingenuous. Talk of anthropology, forensics and the SETI project as relying on or employing “ID” methodology is such a red herring that it’s hard to take seriously. All sentient organisms use pattern matching in interacting with their environment. The “run and tumble” strategy of E. coli is comparing current nutrient concentration to previous stored concentration to decide whether to tumble or run. Are bacteria guilty of using “ID” methodology. As Allan Miller says, WJM is playing word games, though to be fair to him he’s only repeating the party line.

    There’s still no theory of “Intelligent Design”, William.

21. William J. Murray: No; forensics doesn’t just investigate the involvement of people; it investigates the probability that an event was likely deliberate or planned.People can be involved in accidents; the difference between that and an investigation into a possible murder or arson depends on if the initial evidence indicates that not only were “people” involved, but if the evidence indicates deliberate intent.

    BTW, one would think that if the connection of ID to forensics, cryptography and SETI was so trivial, anti-ID advocates wouldn’t work so hard to avoid that “trivial” connection.It is, in fact, trivially obvious that forensics, cryptography and SETIemploy ID as a potential causal category – despite semantic (and ludicrously transparent) attempts to avoid the terms “intelligent” and “design”.

    In Murrayworld words mean exactly what you want them to!

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forensic

22. Richardthughes: There’s probably a good paper here somewhere on the distribution of “paths” in terms of length, dimensions, etc between randomly selected words.

    Did you see this link provided by Aardvark? Fascinating!

23. Alan Fox,

    LOL

    IMNSHO, the analogy is not with cryptanalysis either, where the “intelligent source” is an (assumed) given, but rather with steganalysis. Interestingly, in stegananalysis there is no requirement at all that the payload involve intelligence, merely that the package departs from the statistical distribution expected for an unadulterated package.
    And good steganographer can make the analyzer’s life hell with a barrage of packages that carry meaningless, but not quite random, payloads.
    I suspect that there is an analogy to ID here, but I haven’t quite figured it out yet…
    I am, however, quietly confident that WJM will hate it.

    Although “a barrage of meaningless, but not quite random, messages” is an eerily accurate description of UD…

24. If you have a mutating populating of strings and select based on the number of substrings that appear in words (allowing non-words that have substring similarities to words) you can get some interesting progressions. Among other things, you can generate pronounceable neologisms that look like words and sometimes make sense.

    OOS
    BOOS
    BOOS
    BOON
    COON
    COOM
    SNOOM
    SPOOM
    SPOOEM
    SPOOMM
    SPOOMI
    SPOOML
    SPOORL
    SPOORG
    SPOORM
    SPOOR
    SPOOT
    SPOOU
    SPOOP
    SPOOL
    SPOOLL
    SPOOLZ
    SPOOLI
    SPOONII
    SPOONIG
    SPOONIE
    SPOONIS
    POONISH
    SPOONISH
    SPOORISH
    SPOOKISH
    SPOOKISP
    SNOOKINP
    SNOOKINT
    SNOOLINS
    SNOWLINS
    SNOWLINE
    SNOWLINEE
    SNOWLINET
    SNOWLINEZ
    SNOWLINER
    NOWLINERS
    NOLLINERS
    NILLINERS
    NILLINESS
    NULLINESS
    CULLINESS
    ZULLINESS
    ZULTINESS
    ZULTINESS
    ZULTINESS
    ZURTINESS
    SURTINESS
    SURLINESS
    CURLINESS
    GURLINESS
    PURLINESS
    PCRLINESS
    SCRLINESS
    SCRKINESS
    SARKINESS
    CARKINESS
    CARKINESS
    CURKINESS
    SURKINESS
    OURKINESS
    OUCKINESS
    BUCKINESS
    RUCKINESS
    RUNKINESS
    PUNKINESS
    MUNKINESS
    MUSKINESS
    ZUSKINESS
    SUSKINESS
    SUSTINESS
    MUSTINESS
    MXSTINESS
    HXSTINESS
    HYSTINESS
    HHSTINESS
    HCSTINESS
    YCSTINESS
    YOSTINESS
    POSTINESS
    PQSTINESS
    OQSTINESS
    YQSTINESS
    YSSTINESS
    XSSTINESS
    XESTINESS
    LESTINESS
    LESTINESS
    VESTINESS
    RESTINESS
    RLSTINESS
    GUSTINESS
    GUSHINESS
    LUSHINESS
    PLUSHINESS

25. Right, I’ve just whacked the wife on the head with a frozen leg of lamb. Let’s see if the forensics guys can pin that one on ID. (Hope they don’t read TSZ though …).

26. If anyone involved in ID actually did some work they could point to that instead of analogies.

27. Alan Fox said:

    To claim “ID” is the science of design detection seems pretty disingenuous.

    How can it be “disingenuous” when that is exactly what it is, and that is exactly what has always been claimed by every leading ID advocate? It seems you and others want (or believe) ID to be about something other than what it is about.

    Also, ID advocates have always referred to cryptography, SETI, and forensics as examples of ID investigations; that you think I “lifted” those examples from some particular ID source indicates to me that you aren’t that familiar with ID writings of its major advocates.

28. DNA_Jock said:

    IMNSHO, the analogy is not with cryptanalysis either

    That you think it is an “analogy” demonstrates that you don’t understand ID theory at all. It’s not an analogy; it’s an example.

29. Petrushka said:

    Since you cite these as examples of ID detection, you are no doubt aware that the detection is done by assuming the phenomena are the result of human or humanoid beings.

    SETI is assuming that humans will be the source of the signals they are looking for? I think not.

    You are no doubt aware that when we find something not made by humans, such as fossil worm tracks or fossil stromatolites, we analyze them by comparing them to artifacts made my contemporary organisms.

    If we find such artifacts on other planets, we will no doubt compare such evidence to the appropriate counterparts on earth; including if we find evidence of intelligent activity (current or historical). Would we compare such evidence to what humans do because humans are upright mammals? Or would we be comparing that evidence to “what humans do” not because of particular physical features or evolutionary heritage, but because humans are intelligent and make artifacts that can also be discerned as the product of an intelligent entity? If SETI has no idea if intelligent being “out there” resemble humans in any physical capacity, they cannot be searching for beings that are, per se, human-like in any sense other than intellectually.

    All of which make it mysterious that the ID movement avoids saying anything about the attributes or capabilities of their putative designer. What we do in forensics is try to match the phenomenon to the means and motives of known actors.

    No, what you do in forensics (at least the kind with respect to potential crimes like murder or arson) is first try to match the evidence against classes of causes to make initial findings that determine what kind of investigation should ensue – which is exactly what ID does, make determinations about probable classes of causes in order to determine what sort of investigation should follow. Forensics doesn’t necessarily attempt to identify any particular suspect, nor does it attempt to identify motive – that’s usually the job of detectives investigating a crime after forensics has determined that some kind of crime has occurred in the first place.

30. SETI must just drive you guys nuts. Perhaps you think that acronym stands for “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Human-Like Stuff”.

31. William J. Murray:
    DNA_Jock said

    IMNSHO, the analogy is not with cryptanalysis either

    That you think it is an “analogy” demonstrates that you don’t understand ID theory at all. It’s not an analogy; it’s an example.

    So ID theory is stegananalysis?
    The ID gang have developed a method that can reliably detect an ‘intelligent’ payload in a package?
    ROFL
    I don’t want to get all tin-foil-hat on you, but you guys are probably going to be whisked off to the same black site where they are keeping that poor chump who solved the NP-complete problem.
    OTOH, that would explain why Dembski’s been rather quiet lately.
    I’ve said too much alread

32. William J. Murray: SETI must just drive you guys nuts. Perhaps you think that acronym stands for “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Human-Like Stuff”.

    That would in fact comport more closely to the ID position, as they are the ones that claim that extrapolating from the design we see from humans to the OOl is legitimate.

    Just look at any of KF’s comments for evidence of this.
    
    Anyway, how long did that explosion last and what is this “evidence” for ID’s involvement that you claim exists?

33. William J. Murray: SETI must just drive you guys nuts.

    No, because they are doing real work. What’s the ID equivalent of SETI?

    If you had a setup comparable to them (how many WOW signals has ID detected) then that would be different.

    ID is just talking about ID. SETI is actual science. They don’t just talk on a blog, they have detectors and everything!

34. William J. Murray: No, what you do in forensics (at least the kind with respect to potential crimes like murder or arson) is first try to match the evidence against classes of causes to make initial findings that determine what kind of investigation should ensue – which is exactly what ID does

    That’s simply not true.

    You believe that’s what ID does, do you? Then it won’t trouble to point to an example of where this was actually done will it?

    Somehow I don’t think you will, but does this sort of thing never give your objective morality a tweak? Making claims you know you cannot back up in support of a point you are trying to make never gives you pause?

    This objective morality you claim to know of sure is bizzare. I think I’ll stick to what I’ve already got, thanks.

35. William J. Murray,

    No, I think SETI does what it says on the tin, as (almost) conceded above. The fundamental assumption is that deliberate or inadvertent signals would be produced by beings of similar motivation and technological capacity to ourselves. We imagine what might be detectable, and set about detecting it. Until we have detected it, it remains hypothetical, which is an important distinction with ID as practiced – it is almost universally believed not only that not only would a … ummm … Designer leave the same marks of design as we do, but that those marks have already been detected, mainly without any sophisticated instrumentation or analysis or serious attempt to account for alternative ‘causal categories’. Rather than trying to detect a signal among noise, it is believed that there is little or no ‘noise’.

    If SETI finds a sufficiently distinctive signal, particularly if Dopplering according to orbital motion, then they will have a phenomenon. ID has at least the potential to find a signal too. But they won’t find it by analogy, or quibbling every detail of the evolutionary background, a real signal-scrambling process that cannot be turned off. If you can detect design, detect some already. But candidate signals have so far fallen far short.

    And, of course, SETI is all about communication – the detection of signals intended or simply given off by a civilisation. It is trivial to associate certain kinds of communication with intelligence. It is much less trivial to associate biology with it.

36. Allan Miller: If you can detect design, detect some already.

    William claims that this has already happened but seems reluctant to go into details.

    In any event, we do have evidence of an apparent massive insertion of unprecedented functional information (body plans) in a relatively short span of time: it’s called the Cambrian Explosion.

    But it’s ok, it’s only an “apparent” massive insertion of functional information so that’s his get out clause right there. He’s not making the claim that it was ID, just that it looked like ID so he does not have to furnish any evidence (in his mind anyway). To me it just looks like “all mouth and no trousers”.

    You have to wonder how many years will have to pass before even the most stalwart ID supporter wonders why ID never seems to actually do the things it claims it can do.

37. William J. Murray: SETI must just drive you guys nuts. Perhaps you think that acronym stands for “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Human-Like Stuff”.

    Does it not give you pause that KF’s billions of examples of FIASCO are all created by humans and that he believes that you can extrapolate out from that to a designer that must be billions of years old and has the ability to intervene over and over again in reality with no signs of that intervention at all?

    No, I guess it does not. Otherwise you’d mention to KF that the designer of “body plans” millions of years ago can hardly be anything we understand as “intelligence”.

    So it’s *ID* that has assigned Human-Like properties to it’s purported designer. That you can’t perceive this is actually quite amusing, as it demonstrates to me you don’t understand ID theory at all.

38. SETI is assuming that humans will be the source of the signals they are looking for? I think not.

    SETI is not assuming that gods will be the source of the signals they are looking for. For one thing, what signal would you expect from a god?

    Perhaps you’ve heard of evolution. It is assumed to produce organisms and intelligences similar in many ways. Of course that wouldn’t be true with mystery magical evolution, but then you can’t do any kind of science with poofery anyhow. IOW, basically SETI is predicated upon real evolutionary expectations, not on mysterious primordial intelligences of some sort.

    Or would we be comparing that evidence to “what humans do” not because of particular physical features or evolutionary heritage, but because humans are intelligent and make artifacts that can also be discerned as the product of an intelligent entity?

    How absurd. Humans are evolved intelligences, with the needs, greeds, vanities, loves, and hates of such entities. Humans are intelligent, sure, and produce rationally, not via the limitations of heredity (save in the case of artifical selection, of course, because humans used to be limited by the organisms’ inheritances).

    If SETI has no idea if intelligent being “out there” resemble humans in any physical capacity, they cannot be searching for beings that are, per se, human-like in any sense other than intellectually.

    They resemble humans in that they evolved according to evolutionary limitations and evolutionary needs. Intelligences that may have undergone some huge transformation of design might still be detectable, as the signals may still show patterns and regularities, but we may never really understand what those signals might reveal.

    No, what you do in forensics (at least the kind with respect to potential crimes like murder or arson) is first try to match the evidence against classes of causes

    Like gods, aliens, leprechauns, and humans? What are these “classes of causes,” and do you have even a glancing idea of what forensics does? It looks for traces of human activity, and tries to identify said humans. Or, does it find a blade of grass in the victim’s hair, note that it was intelligently caused, and start looking for whomever made that blade of grass, whether it be god, alien, leprechaun, or human?

    to make initial findings that determine what kind of investigation should ensue – which is exactly what ID does, make determinations about probable classes of causes in order to determine what sort of investigation should follow.

    So how does it detect agent activity in a sea of intelligently-caused organisms? Damn amoebas, did aliens make them, or gods? If it’s aliens, well, maybe an alien killed poor Mrs. Jones.

    Forensics doesn’t necessarily attempt to identify any particular suspect,

    Yah, the fingerprint and DNA databases are just for archival interest. I suppose we could say that they don’t always identify any particular suspect, but they generally do try.

    nor does it attempt to identify motive

    Yeah, no identification of a probable sexual battery, or concern about the pounds of white powdery substance strewn about–may as well not test it.

    – that’s usually the job of detectives investigating a crime after forensics has determined that some kind of crime has occurred in the first place.

    Refining motive is more for later detective work, while forensics must do what it can to preserve evidence of motive when it is apparent. If no motive is apparent from forensics, then financial issues and circumstantial evidence are investigated, because forensics didn’t establish the motive.

    All that ID would ever add to investigations of agent activity is a vast number of false positives, as evolved organisms are misidentified as “intelligently designed.”

    Glen Davidson

39. It would be useful if William were to given an example of design detection that has actually been performed by an ID proponent (e.g. somthing to do with biology or some explosion or other rather then “is this english text english?”) and compare each step of that process to each step performed by someone in each of the disciplines William has mentioned as they are performed.

    Of course, as the former has never actually happened none of this can possibly happen.

    Or can it William? 😛

40. DNA_jock said:

    So ID theory is stegananalysis?

    I didn’t say anything about steganalysis. I said that cryptography, SETI, and forensics were examples, not analogies, of ID principles at work.

41. William J. Murray:
    DNA_jock said:
    I didn’t say anything about steganalysis.I said that cryptography, SETI, and forensics were examples, not analogies, of ID principles at work.

    If those are examples of ID principles at work, then ID cannot be applied to living things.

42. William J. Murray: ID principles

    Oh?

    Have those ID “principles” been applied to, say, biology at all?

    If so, Any examples?

    You seem sure that some aspects of biology were designed yet seem as reluctant as you are sure to share your reasons for thinking that.
    
    How long did the Cambrian explosion last and how do you know Intelligent Design was involved.

43. Joe@UD

    And we have evidence for intelligent design in biology.

    WIlliam@TSZ

    In any event, we do have evidence of an apparent massive insertion of unprecedented functional information (body plans) in a relatively short span of time: it’s called the Cambrian Explosion.

    What’s it like to have become the more wordy, erudite version of JoeG William? You are both making the same claims now, and providing the same support for those claims – none whatsoever.

44. I’m not sure if this has been mentioned already but the SETI institute openly rejects any perceived similarities to ID. From Seth Shostak, SETI director:

    the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist.

45. William J. Murray:
    DNA_jock said:

    I didn’t say anything about steganalysis.I said that cryptography, SETI, and forensics were examples, not analogies, of ID principles at work.

    You might want to look up what those words mean and what those disciplines do, William.

46. William J. Murray: I didn’t say anything about steganalysis. I said that cryptography, SETI, and forensics were examples, not analogies, of ID principles at work.

    I was only trying to help you out, William.
    Steganalysis asks the question “Which, if any, of these packages carries information?”
    Cryptanalysis asks the question “Given that this package does carry information, what can I learn about the intentions of the sender?”
    So design detection is (or corresponds to, whatever) steganalysis; cryptanalysis would ask the different question “Given that this entity is designed, what can we learn about the designer?” He’s fond of beetles, perhaps. You appear to be claiming that ID is theological in nature.
    Thus your insistence on drawing the analogy claiming an identity with cryptanalysis is something of an own goal.
    As noted above, “cryptography” would include encryption. Perhaps the one thing ID proponents seem to have some talent for…

47. As noted above, “cryptography” would include encryption. Perhaps the one thing ID proponents seem to have some talent for…

    Nah, encryption implies that meaning can appear out of it with the right key.

    Glen Davidson

48. GlenDavidson: Nah, encryption implies that meaning can appear out of it with the right key.
    Glen Davidson

    I derive meaning fro ID arguments by inverting them.

49. TristanM: I’m not sure if this has been mentioned already but the SETI institute openly rejects any perceived similarities to ID

    Come now, obviously William knows more about SETI then the SETI director!

    I expect this not to be acknowledged by William, like all contrary information it simply will not pass!

50. TristanM,

    Yep, I did link to it, but it bears repeating.