A positive case for ID other than critizing evolution

[Cisco Qid]

The scientific theory of Intelligent Design does more than simply criticize evolution, it presents a positive case for design.

Link

The theory of ID employs scientific methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. To borrow geologist Charles Lyell’s words, intelligent agency is a cause “now in operation” that can be studied in the world around us. Thus, as a historical science, ID employs the principle of uniformitarianism by beginning with present-day observations of how intelligent agents operate, and then converts those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should expect to find if a natural object arose by intelligent design.

When an Intelligent Agent Acts​

For example, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that “[t]he principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”1 According to Dembski, when an intelligent agent acts, “it chooses from a range of competing possibilities” to create some complex and specified event. Thus, the type of information that we observe results from intelligent design is called specified complexity or complex and specified information — or CSI for short.


In brief, something is complex if it’s unlikely, and specified if it matches an independently derived pattern. In using CSI to detect design, Dembski says ID is “a theory of information,” where “information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation.”2 ID theorists then positively infer design by studying natural objects to determine whether they bear the type of information that, in our experience, arises from an intelligent cause.

A Large Empirical Dataset​

ID thus seeks to find in nature the types of information — to be precise, complex and specified information — that we know from experience is produced by intelligent agents. Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying what is produced when intelligent agents design things. For example, language, codes, and machines are all structures that contain high CSI, but in our experience, these things always derive from an intelligent mind. By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when an intelligent agent has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if intelligent design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicates the prior action of intelligence.

A Two-Step Process​

This positive argument for design follows the standard scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. To be more specific, the positive case for design begins with observations of intelligent agents and what they produce when they design things. This leads to hypotheses (predictions) about what we should expect to find if intelligent agency was involved in the origin of a structure. These predictions are testable via studies of nature — often called experiments — but in this case meaning any empirical study of what exists in the natural world. Depending upon the outcome of the experiments and the nature of the data, the hypothesis/prediction is either confirmed or not. This leads to a (tentative) conclusion about whether design has been detected in nature.


At its simplest level, the positive case for design is a thus two-step process:

1. Study intelligent agents to understand what kind of information is produced when they act.
   
2. Study natural objects to determine whether they contain the type of information known to be produced when intelligent agents act.

Next, “Investigating the Evidence for Intelligent Design.”

 

[The Pixie]

We are delighted to present a series by geologist Casey Luskin on “The Positive Case for Intelligent Design.” This is the second entry in the series, a modified excerpt from the new book The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos.

Great to see the Discovery Institute now admitting that ID is about faith.

The theory of ID employs scientific methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. To borrow geologist Charles Lyell’s words, intelligent agency is a cause “now in operation” that can be studied in the world around us. Thus, as a historical science, ID employs the principle of uniformitarianism by beginning with present-day observations of how intelligent agents operate, and then converts those observations into positive predictions of what scientists should expect to find if a natural object arose by intelligent design.

This is also great, and is something I have been saying ID should do for years. What makes (or made?) ID pseudo-science is not that it has to invoke God, but that it cannot make falsifiable predictions.

For example, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that “[t]he principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”1 According to Dembski, when an intelligent agent acts, “it chooses from a range of competing possibilities” to create some complex and specified event. Thus, the type of information that we observe results from intelligent design is called specified complexity or complex and specified information — or CSI for short.

So is Dembski claiming that every time an intelligent being acts it creates a complex and specified event?

In what way are events complex? Compare a guy tripping over a broken paving stone and the Amazon flowing to the ocean. Which is complex, which is specified? Which is chosen? Has the river chosen a course to the ocean? Did the guy choose to trip?

Got to be honest, this looks like nonsense to me, but perhaps someone can explain.

In brief, something is complex if it’s unlikely, and specified if it matches an independently derived pattern. In using CSI to detect design, Dembski says ID is “a theory of information,” where “information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation.”2 ID theorists then positively infer design by studying natural objects to determine whether they bear the type of information that, in our experience, arises from an intelligent cause.

Okay, but where is the positive prediction here? Is he predicting that every event for an intelligent agent has CSI? Is that the case for the guy tripping? If not, prediction failed.

I am sure we can all think of things we have done that did not result in a high CSI event - and that is without getting into how we measure the CSI of an event.

ID thus seeks to find in nature the types of information — to be precise, complex and specified information — that we know from experience is produced by intelligent agents. Human intelligence provides a large empirical dataset for studying what is produced when intelligent agents design things. For example, language, codes, and machines are all structures that contain high CSI, but in our experience, these things always derive from an intelligent mind. By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when an intelligent agent has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if intelligent design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicates the prior action of intelligence.

This is pretty flawed reasoning. They are saying CSI comes from intelligent designers, therefore CSI can only come from intelligent designers. That is quite a leap!

It is also a very selective leap. They could observe:

By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when a human has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if human design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicates the prior action of human intelligence.​

The logic is the same. If their argument is sound, then they have evidence that all organisms were designed by humans!

As far as I can see, the only "positive prediction" in the article is that there will be high CSI in animals. Well, evolution predicts that too (see for example here, here and here).

 

[rossum]

You quote Dr. Dembski: "Thus, the type of information that we observe results from intelligent design is called specified complexity or complex and specified information — or CSI for short."

The problem with CSI is that is depends critically on the specification. If you change the specification then you can change the amount of CSI present.

For example, if my specification is "A line from a Wordsworth poem" the the text "I wandered lonely as a cloud" is specified, with some small value of CSI. If I change the specification to "A line from a Shakespeare sonnet" then the value of CSI in the identical text drops to zero.

Since the value of CSI depends on the specification, then there needs to be an objective way to pick a valid specification. Dembski has done a little work in this area, rejecting post-hoc specifications as painting the target round where the arrow hit. However, there is more to it than that; work which ID has not done.

There is also a distinct lack of published results from double-blind tests showing that CSI is is fact a valid way to detect design. ID claims that it is, but so far I have not seen any published results confirming the claim.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Great to see the Discovery Institute now admitting that ID is about faith.

To the possible chagrin of some fellow Christians on this forum, ID is not about faith. Although it is more palatable to those of faith than the alternative, it is strictly based on observation and hypothesis based on those observations. IOW, it does not use scripture as an authoritative source. Some on the ID team are even atheists, for example, David Berlinski while Jonathon Wells was a follower of Sun Myung Moon who claimed to be the Messiah but died of multiple organ failures.

This is also great, and is something I have been saying ID should do for years. What makes (or made?) ID pseudo-science is not that it has to invoke God, but that it cannot make falsifiable predictions.

You keep saying this but the evidence indicates the opposite. It is almost as if, "if I keep repeating the same thing over and over, eventually some one will believe me". "Junk DNA" was a prediction by evolution along with claimed vestigial organs such as tonsils which were later discovered to be part of the immune system which is why they were removed every time a dentist went in. The T3SS was predicted by evolution to be the forerunner of bacterial flagellum by co-option while ID predicted that the genes in the T3SS would be found to be more recent than the BF - guess who won out in that prediction.

So is Dembski claiming that every time an intelligent being acts it creates a complex and specified event?

So your choice is to add to the assertion and then destroy the insertion. The real claim it that intelligence it the only force capable of CSI not that every time intelligence acts it creates CSI.

In what way are events complex? Compare a guy tripping over a broken paving stone and the Amazon flowing to the ocean. Which is complex, which is specified? Which is chosen? Has the river chosen a course to the ocean? Did the guy choose to trip?

Got to be honest, this looks like nonsense to me, but perhaps someone can explain.


Okay, but where is the positive prediction here? Is he predicting that every event for an intelligent agent has CSI? Is that the case for the guy tripping? If not, prediction failed.

I am sure we can all think of things we have done that did not result in a high CSI event - and that is without getting into how we measure the CSI of an event.

How we measure CSI has been clearly explained to you but you keep bumping your head into the same wall. That would be an example of intelligence willfully ignoring CSI in order to propose one's own agenda.

This is pretty flawed reasoning. They are saying CSI comes from intelligent designers, therefore CSI can only come from intelligent designers. That is quite a leap!

It is also a very selective leap. They could observe:

By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when a human has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if human design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicates the prior action of human intelligence.​

The logic is the same. If their argument is sound, then they have evidence that all organisms were designed by humans!

Humans as the strongest source of intelligence that we are aware of are the best example that we have to ascertain how intelligence reacts. To a lesser extent dolphins ( remember reading or hearing) have developed a rudimentary language and there might be other examples.

As far as I can see, the only "positive prediction" in the article is that there will be high CSI in animals. Well, evolution predicts that too (see for example here, here and here).

The first link uses EV as its simulation source to demonstrate increased complexity and specification which has already been debunked for its use of information oracles without which it fails. The second link is someone's BLOG and discusses increased complexity without mentioning specification which demonstrates nothing. But I agree with your third link - it demonstrates increased complexity without increased specification which is simply the second law of thermodynamics or entropy. That is, things tend towards disorder (increased complexity without increased specification) in an isolated system.

 

[CrowCross]

For example, mathematician and philosopher William Dembski observes that “[t]he principal characteristic of intelligent agency is directed contingency, or what we call choice.”1 According to Dembski, when an intelligent agent acts, “it chooses from a range of competing possibilities” to create some complex and specified event. Thus, the type of information that we observe results from intelligent design is called specified complexity or complex and specified information — or CSI for short.

A virus can exist in the natural world. They are looked at, sequenced and considered as "natural"

One virus in particular, for example the Covid-19, can be looked at and it can be seen where specified complexity has been added.
It would be similiar to looking at the grafted portion of a plant where tissue is added to the tissue of another.

Other forms of complexity is the ability for an object to perform work. To accomplish a task, such as reading a genetic code and making a copy of it. Then passing the instructions contained in the copy in an assembly line fashion along to another organelle which has the ability to understand or react to the instruction on a level much higher than simple chemistry and use that information to produce something with a purpose. This product then has the ability to interact with another organelle to acheive an outcome.

It becomes overly obvious that such processes that occur in a cell could not possible be the end result of random chance mutations and natural selection.

 

[The Pixie]

So your choice is to add to the assertion and then destroy the insertion. The real claim it that intelligence it the only force capable of CSI not that every time intelligence acts it creates CSI.

What you say makes sense, but is not what the paper says:

"According to Dembski, when an intelligent agent acts, “it chooses from a range of competing possibilities” to create some complex and specified event. Thus, the type of information that we observe results from intelligent design is called specified complexity or complex and specified information — or CSI for short."​

The problem here is that the author wants to find a prediction. As you say, "The real claim it that intelligence it the only force capable of CSI", but that is not a prediction. Casey has phrased by as a prediction, and ended up saying all events caused by an intelligent agent have CSI. And that is nonsense.

How we measure CSI has been clearly explained to you but you keep bumping your head into the same wall. That would be an example of intelligence willfully ignoring CSI in order to propose one's own agenda.

But you cannot link me to that because...?

Humans as the strongest source of intelligence that we are aware of are the best example that we have to ascertain how intelligence reacts. To a lesser extent dolphins ( remember reading or hearing) have developed a rudimentary language and there might be other examples.

Okay. But Casey says: "By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when... " Therefore his conclusion must be of human intelligence.

Is this reasoning sound, Cisco?

By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when a human has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if human design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicates the prior action of human intelligence.​

If you say it is, then we are forced to conclude that the designer of life must have been human. If you say it is not, however, then your reason for rejecting it can also be applied to Casey's argument.

Consequently we can be sure you will simply duck the question!

The first link uses EV as its simulation source to demonstrate increased complexity and specification which has already been debunked for its use of information oracles without which it fails.

Can you explain why the use of "information oracles" is an issue here? An "information oracle" would seem to be like the environment; testing if the organism fits, and killing it off if it does not. It is not claimed to be a perfect model, but it does seem reasonable.

The claim is merely that the system will produce CSI; it apparently does.

The second link is someone's BLOG and discusses increased complexity without mentioning specification which demonstrates nothing.

And the OP is basically the DI's BLOG.

How are we measuring specification here? I do not see that in the article in the OP. Perhaps you can enlighten us and we can look at this in depth. Here is another article by the DI specifically about CSI, and even though it has a lengthy section of specification, I see no indication as to how to measure it.

If it is merely conforming to a pattern, then the use of "information oracles" in EV would seem to fit perfectly.

But I agree with your third link - it demonstrates increased complexity without increased specification which is simply the second law of thermodynamics or entropy. That is, things tend towards disorder (increased complexity without increased specification) in an isolated system.

You think greater disorder is the same as greater complexity? That seems odd. The DI article I just linked to uses poker hands as an illustration, with a royal flush being high complexity, low entropy, low disorder.

Perhaps you can you tell me how you are measuring complexity as well as specification?

 

[TeabagSalad]

A virus can exist in the natural world. They are looked at, sequenced and considered as "natural"

One virus in particular, for example the Covid-19, can be looked at and it can be seen where specified complexity has been added.
It would be similiar to looking at the grafted portion of a plant where tissue is added to the tissue of another.

I presume you have a reference to the paper which details your claims about COVID-19?

 

[Cisco Qid]

What you say makes sense, but is not what the paper says:

"According to Dembski, when an intelligent agent acts, “it chooses from a range of competing possibilities” to create some complex and specified event. Thus, the type of information that we observe results from intelligent design is called specified complexity or complex and specified information — or CSI for short."​

The problem here is that the author wants to find a prediction. As you say, "The real claim it that intelligence it the only force capable of CSI", but that is not a prediction. Casey has phrased by as a prediction, and ended up saying all events caused by an intelligent agent have CSI. And that is nonsense.

You have to read it according to what it says not what you want it to say. "When an intelligent agent acts, "it chooses from a range...to create CSI...". An accident is not choosing from a range to create CSI but rather is a random event involving an intelligent agent.

Okay. But Casey says: "By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when... " Therefore his conclusion must be of human intelligence.

Is this reasoning sound, Cisco?

By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when a human has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if human design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicates the prior action of human intelligence.​

If you say it is, then we are forced to conclude that the designer of life must have been human. If you say it is not, however, then your reason for rejecting it can also be applied to Casey's argument.

Consequently we can be sure you will simply duck the question!

Humans have the highest degree of intelligence and are therefore the prime candidates of this type of study. Another example would be in science fiction where humans encounter more advanced species whose technology and intelligence far surpasses our own. Obviously we can't use a fantasy race for direct observation but we can use human intelligence to guide us to make predictions on how they would act. For example, they would develop some form of communication and possibly even mathematical tools for analysis along with mechanical tools for unpredictable fabrication processes. SETI is an example of this prediction where astrophysicists search for signs of intelligence in other worlds by attempting to measure specified information in EM waves. An example of a specified sequence would be the truncated value of pi.

Can you explain why the use of "information oracles" is an issue here? An "information oracle" would seem to be like the environment; testing if the organism fits, and killing it off if it does not. It is not claimed to be a perfect model, but it does seem reasonable.

The claim is merely that the system will produce CSI; it apparently does.

The use of information oracles is cheating and supplying intelligent information to the simulation that is not available to a blind search nor through a non-intelligent environment. This is why these simulation programs are no longer used in research.

And the OP is basically the DI's BLOG.

How are we measuring specification here? I do not see that in the article in the OP. Perhaps you can enlighten us and we can look at this in depth. Here is another article by the DI specifically about CSI, and even though it has a lengthy section of specification, I see no indication as to how to measure it.

If it is merely conforming to a pattern, then the use of "information oracles" in EV would seem to fit perfectly.

I will admit that this is a highly nebulous subject and involves using very large numbers to make predictions. Let's pick flipping a coin 270 times. The reason I pick 270 is that it is a nice round number and is roughly a set of numbers 100 times larger than the number of atoms in the known universe or 10 to the power of 82 (10^82 where 10^80 is the estimated number of atoms in the known universe). From probability theory we know that any sequence of 270 flips is just as probable as any other. So that flipping a fair coin 270 times and getting all heads is just as probable as any random sequence since all heads is a member of our set and so is all tails along with alternating heads and tails. But these have something that random sequences don't have and that is specification. When we encounter these specified sequences we infer intelligence rather than random processes at work. That would be specification in a nutshell and the long version would require much more space and time than is available here. And I am not the expert in the subject.

You think greater disorder is the same as greater complexity? That seems odd. The DI article I just linked to uses poker hands as an illustration, with a royal flush being high complexity, low entropy, low disorder.

Perhaps you can you tell me how you are measuring complexity as well as specification?

A royal flush is no more complex that any other five card combination. It is just that its high improbability means more information from the definition of information as -log(p).

 

[Gus Bovona]

I will admit that this is a highly nebulous subject and involves using very large numbers to make predictions. Let's pick flipping a coin 270 times. The reason I pick 270 is that it is a nice round number and is roughly a set of numbers 100 times larger than the number of atoms in the known universe or 10 to the power of 82 (10^82 where 10^80 is the estimated number of atoms in the known universe). From probability theory we know that any sequence of 270 flips is just as probable as any other. So that flipping a fair coin 270 times and getting all heads is just as probable as any random sequence since all heads is a member of our set and so is all tails along with alternating heads and tails. But these have something that random sequences don't have and that is specification. When we encounter these specified sequences we infer intelligence rather than random processes at work. That would be specification in a nutshell and the long version would require much more space and time than is available here. And I am not the expert in the subject.

This sounds like specified information is defined by having low Kolgomorov complexity, given that you could specify all heads for 270 times in a row with far shorter string of characters ("270 heads") than a random string of 270 heads/tails trials, which would require 270 characters. Do I have that right?

 

[Cisco Qid]

This sounds like specified information is defined by having low Kolgomorov complexity, given that you could specify all heads for 270 times in a row with far shorter string of characters ("270 heads") than a random string of 270 heads/tails trials, which would require 270 characters. Do I have that right?

I believe that you are correct. I picked a specified sequence that has extremely low kolgomorov complexity and in general specified sequences have lower KC values than random sequences while a truly random sequence would not be compressible. I could have picked a random sequence before the toss which would make it specified with the same probability and the odds of hitting that would be like finding a single marked atom anywhere in the universe or a hundred other universes. It could be in a black hole 3 billion light years away or on a sandy beach in Florida but you only get one pick. I was attempting to emphasize specification rather than information but when you have both, that is, complex information mixed with specification then there is inference to design and at the very least the possibility of design should be left open.

 

[Cisco Qid]

A virus can exist in the natural world. They are looked at, sequenced and considered as "natural"

One virus in particular, for example the Covid-19, can be looked at and it can be seen where specified complexity has been added.
It would be similiar to looking at the grafted portion of a plant where tissue is added to the tissue of another.

Other forms of complexity is the ability for an object to perform work. To accomplish a task, such as reading a genetic code and making a copy of it. Then passing the instructions contained in the copy in an assembly line fashion along to another organelle which has the ability to understand or react to the instruction on a level much higher than simple chemistry and use that information to produce something with a purpose. This product then has the ability to interact with another organelle to acheive an outcome.

It becomes overly obvious that such processes that occur in a cell could not possible be the end result of random chance mutations and natural selection.

I agree with you. I suspect that many evolutionists don't really believe their own theory and it just the alternative that they find hard to accept.

 

[The Pixie]

You have to read it according to what it says not what you want it to say. "When an intelligent agent acts, "it chooses from a range...to create CSI...". An accident is not choosing from a range to create CSI but rather is a random event involving an intelligent agent.

Fine.

So what is the prediction? Are you now predicting that when an intelligent agent acts it may or may not cause an event with CSI? That is not a prediction, that is a tautology.

This is why it was worded how it was, and why I understood it like that. You have successfully removed the prediction from it. I fully agree with you doing that; thanks for sinking their argument.

Is this reasoning sound, Cisco?

By studying the actions of humans, we can understand what to expect to find when a human has been at work, allowing us to construct positive, testable predictions about what we should find if human design is present in nature. High CSI thus reliably indicates the prior action of human intelligence.​

If you say it is, then we are forced to conclude that the designer of life must have been human. If you say it is not, however, then your reason for rejecting it can also be applied to Casey's argument.

Humans have the highest degree of intelligence and are therefore the prime candidates of this type of study. Another example would be in science fiction where humans encounter more advanced species whose technology and intelligence far surpasses our own. Obviously we can't use a fantasy race for direct observation but we can use human intelligence to guide us to make predictions on how they would act. For example, they would develop some form of communication and possibly even mathematical tools for analysis along with mechanical tools for unpredictable fabrication processes. SETI is an example of this prediction where astrophysicists search for signs of intelligence in other worlds by attempting to measure specified information in EM waves. An example of a specified sequence would be the truncated value of pi.

None of which tells me if you think the above is sound reasoning. Why not?

Because you know you cannot. Either answer sinks ID, so you have to evade. That means the lost, and you know you have. You just refuse to admit it to yourself.

The use of information oracles is cheating and supplying intelligent information to the simulation that is not available to a blind search nor through a non-intelligent environment. This is why these simulation programs are no longer used in research.

How is an "information oracle" not a specification?

I will admit that this is a highly nebulous subject and involves using very large numbers to make predictions. Let's pick flipping a coin 270 times. The reason I pick 270 is that it is a nice round number and is roughly a set of numbers 100 times larger than the number of atoms in the known universe or 10 to the power of 82 (10^82 where 10^80 is the estimated number of atoms in the known universe). From probability theory we know that any sequence of 270 flips is just as probable as any other. So that flipping a fair coin 270 times and getting all heads is just as probable as any random sequence since all heads is a member of our set and so is all tails along with alternating heads and tails. But these have something that random sequences don't have and that is specification. When we encounter these specified sequences we infer intelligence rather than random processes at work. That would be specification in a nutshell and the long version would require much more space and time than is available here. And I am not the expert in the subject.

Have you heard of "natural selection"? i guess not. You should read up on it.

Let us say we have 270 coins, and the environment selects coins that turn up heads. We flip all those coins. Then we do it again, but - because we are also modelling natural selection here - the environment makes all those that are heads stick on heads. Say about 128 of them (keeps the maths easy) are now tails. After two flips, we only have 64 tails. After seven flips, there are probably only two coins left that are tails.

 

[CrowCross]

I agree with you. I suspect that many evolutionists don't really believe their own theory and it just the alternative that they find hard to accept.

Yes, they have learned from the anti-God propaganda.

 

[rossum]

Yes, they have learned from the anti-God propaganda.

So, you are telling us that your God is incapable of creating a universe in which evolution works.

Better strike that "omnipotent" then.

 

[CrowCross]

So, you are telling us that your God is incapable of creating a universe in which evolution works.

Better strike that "omnipotent" then.

For that to work God would have had to direct each mutation to tweek the creatures in a direction that increased the information in the code He "wrote" to the point man was eventually formed.

As we all know, science as well as the bible shows us that is not what God did.

 

[Gus Bovona]

For that to work God would have had to direct each mutation to tweek the creatures in a direction that increased the information in the code He "wrote" to the point man was eventually formed.

As we all know, science as well as the bible shows us that is not what God did.

But he could have created a universe in which evolution works if he had wanted to, right?

 

[CrowCross]

But he could have created a universe in which evolution works if he had wanted to, right?

Or instead of doing it in six days He could have done it in a milli-second.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Or instead of doing it in six days He could have done it in a milli-second.

I'm not clear if you're agreeing that he could have created the universe with the theory of evolution operating.

 

[rossum]

For that to work God would have had to direct each mutation to tweek the creatures in a direction that increased the information in the code He "wrote" to the point man was eventually formed.

Why would He have to do that? With omniscient foreknowledge, all He had to do was to set up the rules of the universe as required, and set the initial conditions as required. No further need to intervene as all the outcomes would already be known. That is what omniscience and omnipotence gets you.

As we all know, science as well as the bible shows us that is not what God did.

No. Some interpretations of the Bible say differently, other interpretations say that is what God did.

God made the world, so if your interpretation of the Bible disagrees with the world that God made, then your interpretation is wrong.

 

[Cisco Qid]

Fine.

So what is the prediction? Are you now predicting that when an intelligent agent acts it may or may not cause an event with CSI? That is not a prediction, that is a tautology.

This is why it was worded how it was, and why I understood it like that. You have successfully removed the prediction from it. I fully agree with you doing that; thanks for sinking their argument.

Prediction? There is no prediction. Dembski was simply explaining CSI.

None of which tells me if you think the above is sound reasoning. Why not?

Because you know you cannot. Either answer sinks ID, so you have to evade. That means the lost, and you know you have. You just refuse to admit it to yourself.

Now you are just being silly. My response answered it all.

How is an "information oracle" not a specification?

So are you saying that an information oracle is a specification. And as a side note, we have not even discussed how much information is in the oracle. Could it be that you don't care. Only that it has ruined my precious argument.

Have you heard of "natural selection"? i guess not. You should read up on it.

Let us say we have 270 coins, and the environment selects coins that turn up heads. We flip all those coins. Then we do it again, but - because we are also modelling natural selection here - the environment makes all those that are heads stick on heads. Say about 128 of them (keeps the maths easy) are now tails. After two flips, we only have 64 tails. After seven flips, there are probably only two coins left that are tails.

You asked for a definition of specification and how I defined CSI - not for an argument against evolution. That comes later.