A positive case for ID other than critizing evolution

[CrowCross]

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

What would it matter? God didn't do it that way.

 

[CrowCross]

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.

You seem to keep missing the point....God said He didn't do it that way.

What's next....will you say Christ didn't have to die on the cross..He could have provided forgiveness some other way?

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.

That would be true.

 

[rossum]

You seem to keep missing the point....God said He didn't do it that way.

He did not say that. Some interpretation of the Bible say that, other interpretations of the Bible say differently.

There are a lot of different interpretations to choose between.

 

[CrowCross]

He did not say that. Some interpretation of the Bible say that, other interpretations of the Bible say differently.

There are a lot of different interpretations to choose between.

Interpret away..but forming Eve from Adams rib or side.....isn't evolution.

 

[The Pixie]

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

The article you linked to claims there is a prediction: "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."

I fully agree with you, however, there is no prediction and the article is wrong.

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

It was a simple yes/no question. Is the reasoning sound.

You did not answer earlier, and still you refuse to answer. We both know that and we both know why.

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.

A specification must necessarily contain information. For evolution, the specification is survival in the environment, and that information is in the environment.

For a genetic algorithm, the specification is the "information oracle". That contains information.

For your coin tossing example, the specification is 270 heads. That contains information.

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

I asked for how you measure specification, but okay, so we measure the specification by how unlikely it is. So the same as the information and complexity then? Shall we just measure the complexity and square it?

 

[rossum]

Interpret away..but forming Eve from Adams rib or side.....isn't evolution.

Interpret away. A literal interpretation of Genesis is just another interpretation, and one which does not agree with the world that God made. In effect the YEC interpretation calls God deceptive by placing misleading evidence in the world, showing that it is a lot older than 6,000 years.

 

[Gus Bovona]

What would it matter? God didn't do it that way.

I'd be interested in how you would answer that question, though.

 

[Cisco Qid]

The article you linked to claims there is a prediction: "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."

I fully agree with you, however, there is no prediction and the article is wrong.

There is no prediction just a method for making predictions.

It was a simple yes/no question. Is the reasoning sound.

You did not answer earlier, and still you refuse to answer. We both know that and we both know why.

Your assumption was that since we only measure CSI in humans then humans must be responsible for all the CSI in nature. That reasoning is not sound. It is the quantity of intelligence that is responsible for CSI.

A specification must necessarily contain information. For evolution, the specification is survival in the environment, and that information is in the environment.

For a genetic algorithm, the specification is the "information oracle". That contains information.

For your coin tossing example, the specification is 270 heads. That contains information.

But you did not ask how much information was supplied to the algorithm.

I asked for how you measure specification, but okay, so we measure the specification by how unlikely it is. So the same as the information and complexity then? Shall we just measure the complexity and square it?

No, you still didn't get it. Each of the members of the set were equally unlikely.

 

[rossum]

There is no prediction just a method for making predictions.

No, not quite. There is a claim to have a method for making predictions. Until that method has actually produced some prediction then all we can see is a claim. See Theranos for an example of a claim not actually supported by results.

The claim needs to be supported by relevant results.

 

[Komodo]

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.

This kind of sentence construction -- "when X happens, Y results" -- implies that Y always (or virtually always) results. "When dogs are excited, they wag their tails"; "When people are tired, they breathe rapidly"; "when reasonable people find their strategy fails, they look for another strategy." If there's a range of things that result from X happening, then you have to use a different construction. "When dogs are excited, they may wag their tails, or jump on things, or run in circles," etc.

Maybe Casey didn't want to imply the "always," but if so he should have phrased things differently.

 

[Cisco Qid]

This kind of sentence construction -- "when X happens, Y results" -- implies that Y always (or virtually always) results. "When dogs are excited, they wag their tails"; "When people are tired, they breathe rapidly"; "when reasonable people find their strategy fails, they look for another strategy." If there's a range of things that result from X happening, then you have to use a different construction. "When dogs are excited, they may wag their tails, or jump on things, or run in circles," etc.

Maybe Casey didn't want to imply the "always," but if so he should have phrased things differently.

So now we are going to add grammar to the list of petty details we can attack a theory on which we don't agree. And not just the theory but anybody who attempts to explain the theory better be grammatically correct or there is something wrong with their theory. Not that I agree with your assessment but you and the Pixie are grasping for straws here which leads we to conclude that you don't have much of an argument. I fully agree with the statement as given by Casey. When an intelligent agent acts, he chooses from a range of possibilities. Is this always the case? That would depend on whether the intelligence was turned on or out wondering some place.

 

[CrowCross]

Interpret away. A literal interpretation of Genesis is just another interpretation, and one which does not agree with the world that God made. In effect the YEC interpretation calls God deceptive by placing misleading evidence in the world, showing that it is a lot older than 6,000 years.

Interesting, you get science wrong...then you claim God has placed misleading info? Let me guess..was it God or the devil that planted the Dino fossils?

 

[The Pixie]

There is no prediction just a method for making predictions.

Really? And what is that method?

Looks to me like the method assumes all events cause by an intelligent agent generate CSI, and we both agree that that is not true.

Your assumption was that since we only measure CSI in humans then humans must be responsible for all the CSI in nature. That reasoning is not sound. It is the quantity of intelligence that is responsible for CSI.

Exactly (and if that is what you said before, apologies for not realising)!

The point here is that the ID argument suffers from the same flaw,

Their assumption was that since we only measure CSI in humans then intelligent agents must be responsible for all the CSI in nature. That reasoning is not sound. It is the quantity of CSI generating mechanisms that is responsible for CSI.

But you did not ask how much information was supplied to the algorithm.

No.

Are you going to claim there is the same amount of information in the specification or "information oracle" as in the final result? Can you substantiate that? Or are you just going with insinuation?

No, you still didn't get it. Each of the members of the set were equally unlikely.

So how do you measure specification?

Why not tell me, instead of telling me I am wrong? I am guessing it is because you either have no answer or you have an answer you know is stupid.

 

[The Pixie]

...
But you did not ask how much information was supplied to the algorithm.
...

I just came across this YouTube video where a genetic algorithm is used to determine the best strategy for Monopoly. The results are not that surprising (and not as insane as the video claims!), but as far as I can see the specification - or "information oracle" - is merely a higher probability of winning. The output of the process gives us information that was not present in the specification.

 

[rossum]

Interesting, you get science wrong...then you claim God has placed misleading info? Let me guess..was it God or the devil that planted the Dino fossils?

Interesting. It wasn't God that made the world, but God and the devil together. God didn't make everything (except Himself) because the devil made the dino fossils.

That gives us two creators, not one.

You might want to talk to your local theologian about that.

 

[CrowCross]

Interesting. It wasn't God that made the world, but God and the devil together. God didn't make everything (except Himself) because the devil made the dino fossils.

That gives us two creators, not one.

You might want to talk to your local theologian about that.

I've hrard that argument from anti-God characters, people like yourself before.

 

[The Pixie]

... Let me guess..was it God or the devil that planted the Dino fossils?

Well don't keep us in suspense - what is your guess?

 

[CrowCross]

Well don't keep us in suspense - what is your guess?

Why are you so cutesy ignorant? You know I undertand it was the world wide flood of Noah that buried the dinosaurs that were fossilized.

Biomaterial proves they were buried recently.

 

[Komodo]

So now we are going to add grammar to the list of petty details we can attack a theory on which we don't agree.

Except that I wasn’t attacking any theory; I was only saying you were wrong to deny that Casey’s sentence implied that all actions by intelligent agents created CSI. The way to show this sort of thing is to consider the general rules for understanding what certain kinds of sentences mean and imply. Or do you have a better way?

And not just the theory but anybody who attempts to explain the theory better be grammatically correct or there is something wrong with their theory.

Except that I said nothing whatsoever about anything being wrong with any theory. I only said there was something wrong with your reading of a sentence by Casey.

Not that I agree with your assessment…

Not that you offer any reason for that disagreement…

but you and the Pixie are grasping for straws here which leads we to conclude that you don't have much of an argument.

Except that I wasn’t offering an argument about ID or CSI. I might offer such an argument in the future, but here I was only offering an argument about what Casey’s sentence implied.

I fully agree with the statement as given by Casey. When an intelligent agent acts, he chooses from a range of possibilities. Is this always the case? That would depend on whether the intelligence was turned on or out wondering some place.

You are leaving out a key portion of the statement you say you agree with: that “when an intelligent agent acts, he chooses from a range of possibilities to create CSI.” The implication is that whenever he acts, he chooses, and whenever he chooses, he creates CSI.

If you dispute that, you should be able to offer a sentence in the same form — “when someone does A, he does B, to cause C” — which doesn’t have that implication. If you don’t care enough to bother, no problem. But no, you aren’t confronting a desperate attempt to overthrow ID through sentence analysis. Nothing of the sort is happening here.

 

[rossum]

I've hrard that argument from anti-God characters, people like yourself before.

Funny, I heard that the devil made dino fossils from you, just above in your post #32. Or were you saying that God planted the misleading dino fossils? My apologies if I misunderstood your telling me that God can be deliberately misleading.