Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences
Jason
characteristic signature.
By William A. Dembski
Chance, necessity, or design covers every eventuality in ordinary life.
In ordinary life, explanations that invoke chance, necessity, or design
cover every eventuality. Nevertheless, in the natural sciences one of
these modes of explanation is considered superfluous � namely, design.
From the perspective of the natural sciences, design, as the action of an
intelligent agent, is not a fundamental creative force in nature. Rather,
blind natural causes, characterized by chance and necessity and ruled by
unbroken laws, are thought sufficient to do all nature�s creating.
Darwin�s theory is a case in point.
Does nature require no help from a designing intelligence?
But how do we know that nature requires no help from a designing
intelligence? Certainly, in special sciences ranging from forensics to
archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal
to a designing intelligence is indispensable. What�s more, within these
sciences there are well-developed techniques for identifying intelligence.
Essential to all these techniques is the ability to eliminate chance and
necessity.
Complex, sequenced patterns exhibit intelligence in their design.
For instance, how do the radio astronomers in Contact (the Jodie Foster
movie based on Carl Sagan�s novel of the same name) infer the presence of
extraterrestrial intelligence in the beeps and pauses they monitor from
space? The researchers run signals through computers that are programmed
to recognize many preset patterns. Signals that do not match any of the
patterns pass through the �sieve� and are classified as random. After
years of receiving apparently meaningless �random� signals, the
researchers discover a pattern of beats and pauses that corresponds to the
sequence of all the prime numbers between 2 and 101. (Prime numbers, of
course, are those that are divisible only by themselves and by one.) When
a sequence begins with 2 beats, then a pause, 3 beats, then a pause� and
continues all the way to 101 beats, the researchers must infer the
presence of an extraterrestrial intelligence.
If a sequence lacks complexity, it could easily happen by chance.
Here�s why. There�s nothing in the laws of physics that requires radio
signals to take one form or another. The sequence is therefore contingent
rather than necessary. Also, it is a long sequence and therefore complex.
Note that if the sequence lacked complexity, it could easily have happened
by chance. Finally, it was not just complex but also exhibited an
independently given pattern or specification (it was not just any old
sequence of numbers but a mathematically significant one � the prime
numbers).
Specified complexity: the characteristic trademark or signature of intelligence.
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature � what
I call �specified complexity.� An event exhibits specified complexity if
it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and
therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the
sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that complexity
in the sense of improbability is not sufficient to eliminate chance: flip
a coin long enough, and you�ll witness a highly complex or improbable
event. Even so, you�ll have no reason not to attribute it to chance.
Specifications must be objectively given.
The important thing about specifications is that they be objectively given
and not just imposed on events after the fact. For instance, if an archer
shoots arrows into a wall and we then paint bull�s-eyes around them, we
impose a pattern after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set
up in advance (�specified�) and then the archer hits them accurately, we
know it was by design.
Undirected natural processes are incapable of generating the specified
complexity in organisms.
In my book The Design Inference, I argue that specified complexity
reliably detects design. In that book, however, I focus largely on
examples from the human rather than the natural sciences. The main
criticism of that work to date concerns whether the Darwinian mechanism of
natural selection and random variation is not in fact fully capable of
generating specified complexity. More recently, in No Free Lunch, I show
that undirected natural processes like the Darwinian mechanism are
incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in biological
organisms. It follows that chance and necessity are insufficient for the
natural sciences and that the natural sciences need to leave room for
design.
Father Haskell
Irreduceable complexity defeats itself.
Olrik
> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> characteristic signature.
>
> By William A. Dembski
His "intelligence" was certainly left behind.
Olrik
<snip for sanity>
huge
> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> characteristic signature.
>
> By William A. Dembski
Prof. philosophy at
[Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha]
Southwestern Baptist
*Theological*
freakin'
*Seminary*
in Fort Worth, Texas!
Give me a break.
>
> Chance, necessity, or design covers every eventuality in ordinary life.
> In ordinary life, explanations that invoke chance, necessity, or design
> cover every eventuality. Nevertheless, in the natural sciences one of
> these modes of explanation is considered superfluous ‹ namely, design.
> From the perspective of the natural sciences, design, as the action of
> an intelligent agent, is not a fundamental creative force in nature.
> Rather, blind natural causes, characterized by chance and necessity and
> ruled by unbroken laws, are thought sufficient to do all nature¹s
> creating. Darwin¹s theory is a case in point.
Yes, idiot, Darwin explains how it works.
Subsequent knowledge of DNA reinforces his findings.
> Does nature require no help from a designing intelligence?
Duh! NO.
> But how do we
> know that nature requires no help from a designing intelligence?
> Certainly, in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to
> SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a
> designing intelligence is indispensable.
Duh! Of _course_ a search for an extraterrestrial INTELLIGENCE
_would_ appeal to INTELLIGENCE. None has been found,
and no gods have been found. NONE. Not ONE.
> What¹s more, within these
> sciences there are well-developed techniques for identifying
> intelligence. Essential to all these techniques is the ability to
> eliminate chance and necessity.
>
> Complex, sequenced patterns exhibit intelligence in their design.
No, they don't. Try DNA as a counterexample.
> For
> instance, how do the radio astronomers in Contact (the Jodie Foster
> movie based on Carl Sagan¹s
Sagan, in fact, did *not* assume a designing intelligence of
our world! Nor did he assume that any other intelligences
in the universe came into being by any means other than
evolution.
Please, please don't start bringing freaking *movies* into a
discussion!
> novel of the same name) infer the presence
> of extraterrestrial intelligence in the beeps and pauses they monitor
> from space? The researchers run signals through computers that are
> programmed to recognize many preset patterns. Signals that do not match
> any of the patterns pass through the ³sieve² and are classified as
> random. After years of receiving apparently meaningless ³random²
> signals, the researchers discover a pattern of beats and pauses that
> corresponds to the sequence of all the prime numbers between 2 and 101.
> (Prime numbers, of course, are those that are divisible only by
> themselves and by one.) When a sequence begins with 2 beats, then a
> pause, 3 beats, then a pauseŠ and continues all the way to 101 beats,
> the researchers must infer the presence of an extraterrestrial
> intelligence.
>
> If a sequence lacks complexity, it could easily happen by chance. Here¹s
> why. There¹s nothing in the laws of physics that requires radio signals
> to take one form or another. The sequence is therefore contingent rather
> than necessary. Also, it is a long sequence and therefore complex. Note
> that if the sequence lacked complexity, it could easily have happened by
> chance.
But the opposite cannot be inferred: If a sequence does have complexity
we cannot infer that it comes from intelligence. Darwin explained exactly
why. Go read his book, you ignorant hick.
> Finally, it was not just complex but also exhibited an
> independently given pattern or specification (it was not just any old
> sequence of numbers but a mathematically significant one ‹ the prime
> numbers).
>
> Specified complexity: the characteristic trademark or signature of
> intelligence. Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or
> signature ‹ what I call ³specified complexity.² An event exhibits
> specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if
> it is complex and therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it
> is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern.
> Note that complexity in the sense of improbability is not sufficient to
> eliminate chance: flip a coin long enough, and you¹ll witness a highly
> complex or improbable event. Even so, you¹ll have no reason not to
> attribute it to chance.
>
> Specifications must be objectively given. The important thing about
> specifications is that they be objectively given and not just imposed on
> events after the fact. For instance, if an archer shoots arrows into a
> wall and we then paint bull¹s-eyes around them, we impose a pattern
> after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set up in advance
> (³specified²) and then the archer hits them accurately, we know it was
> by design.
>
> Undirected natural processes are incapable of generating the specified
> complexity in organisms.
Dumb ass, things that have evolved by natural selection are
************** NOT
************* SPECIFIED!
>
> In my book The Design Inference, I argue that specified complexity
> reliably detects design. In that book, however, I focus largely on
> examples from the human rather than the natural sciences. The main
> criticism of that work to date concerns whether the Darwinian mechanism
> of natural selection and random variation is not in fact fully capable
> of generating specified complexity. More recently, in No Free Lunch,
Someone here's ears must be burning.
> I
> show that undirected natural processes like the Darwinian mechanism are
> incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in
> biological organisms.
Horse crap.
> It follows that chance and necessity are
> insufficient for the natural sciences and that the natural sciences need
> to leave room for design.
Try having a few of your own thoughts instead of posting silly articles
by dorks at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Christopher A. Lee
>Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
>characteristic signature.
>
>By William A. Dembski
Idiot.
Sanity's Little Helper
> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> characteristic signature.
Can you say "Rorshasch"?
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
Josef Balluch
> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> characteristic signature.
>
> By William A. Dembski
Uh huh. I scanned the article and did not find any characteristic
signatures of intelligence. All that I found was the predictable Argument
from Ignorance.
Regards,
Josef
Theology is but the ignorance of natural causes, reduced to a
system.
-- Baron Paul
thomas p.
"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Jason-03011...@67-150-173-89.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> characteristic signature.
Welcome back twit.
Christopher A. Lee
<josef....@sympatico.can> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:44:41 -0800, Jason wrote:
>
>> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
>> characteristic signature.
>>
>> By William A. Dembski
>
>Uh huh. I scanned the article and did not find any characteristic
>signatures of intelligence. All that I found was the predictable Argument
>from Ignorance.
All these "arguments" for God (or a designer) try to generate
information where there isn't any.
If there were any information that would itself be evidence and they
wouldn't need convoluted arguments that are nothing more than "spot
the fallacy" exercises in abstract logic.
There are two ways to know design, but they both fail when used to
"prove" a "designer of everything".
1. Comparison with something natural, ie that wasn't designed.
But if everything is supposed have been designed there is nothing
natural for conparision.
2. We know enough about ourselves to know what we design. This
presumes us. But they can't do that to "prove" a designer of
everything because it already presumes one. It's a circular argument.
They try to hide this behind purpose but again this is a presumption
not a conclusion.
It amazes me just how stupid they are.
But it's more than half the US population and they both vote and get
elected including to school boards.
Christopher A. Lee
Enkidu
> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> characteristic signature.
>
> By William A. Dembski
Dumbski? You quote Dumbsky here? That's a laugh! We know all about him
and his bogus psudeo-science, more than you do. What's next? Are you
going to throw Velikovsky and Jim Jones in as authorities as well?
--
Enkidu
Enkidu
That was my first thought. I wonder if he's gotten around to praying for
me yet.
--
Enkidu
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
>characteristic signature.
>
>By William A. Dembski
<Dembski's errors deleted>
Mr. Dembski has always been wrong about this. Repeatedly posting his
errors will only remind everyone how poor your critical thinking
abilities are.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Even if these sociopaths don't understand the counter-arguments, they
know it is disputed. Yet they post it over and over again to those who
dispute it.
zamboni30...@yahooonspam.com
>Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
>characteristic signature.
>
While I might agree that intelligence typically leaves behind a
pattern, it is logically fallacious to infer that things with a
pattern were left by intelligence.
One would learn that in the first week in an elementary logic class.
Which indicates that the author has no training, formal or otherwise,
in forming logical arguments.
--
zamboni30000 AA#2139
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
It's quite surprising to see such elementary logical errors from someone
who has a Ph.D. in mathematics and another one in philosophy. I can
understand such errors from high school freshman, but I'm hard pressed
to see anything but intentional dishonesty from such a well-educated
man.
So, Bill Dembski, are you a liar?
huge
> Jason wrote:
>
>> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
>> characteristic signature.
>>
>> By William A. Dembski
>
> Dumbski? You quote Dumbsky here? That's a laugh! We know all about him
> and his bogus psudeo-science, more than you do. What's next? Are you
> going to throw Velikovsky and Jim Jones
Or worse yet, John Jones!
> in as authorities as well?
--
Brian E. Clark
elv...@noshpam.org says...
> > Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> > characteristic signature.
>
> Can you say "Rorshasch"?
I'm not sure I can. I don't know what do with the extra
's' near the end. ;-)
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Christopher A. Lee
Ask Schtanley Birkenschaw.
Andre Lieven
> It is an ancient Jason <Ja...@nospam.com>, and he posteth:
>
> > Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
> > characteristic signature.
>
> Can you say "Rorshasch"?
I rather doubt that Walter Kovacs (aka the masked crimefighter
Rorschach)
would agree with Dembski...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_%28film%29
Andre
Free Lunch
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in alt.atheism:
Maybe Ernie Kovacs would be more Dembski's speed. Dembski could help the
Nairobi Trio.
thomas p.
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4604k598r6lajq7fu...@4ax.com...
I have pills for that.
thomas p.
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:37:56 -0500, Josef Balluch
> <josef....@sympatico.can> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:44:41 -0800, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences: Intelligence leaves behind a
>>> characteristic signature.
>>>
>>> By William A. Dembski
>>
>>Uh huh. I scanned the article and did not find any characteristic
>>signatures of intelligence. All that I found was the predictable Argument
>>from Ignorance.
>
> All these "arguments" for God (or a designer) try to generate
> information where there isn't any.
>
> If there were any information that would itself be evidence and they
> wouldn't need convoluted arguments that are nothing more than "spot
> the fallacy" exercises in abstract logic.
>
> There are two ways to know design, but they both fail when used to
> "prove" a "designer of everything".
>
> 1. Comparison with something natural, ie that wasn't designed.
>
> But if everything is supposed have been designed there is nothing
> natural for conparision.
I have pointed that out many times to members of my own family. They
are totally unable to understand what I am talking about. I think I was
adopted.
>
> 2. We know enough about ourselves to know what we design. This
> presumes us. But they can't do that to "prove" a designer of
> everything because it already presumes one. It's a circular argument.
> They try to hide this behind purpose but again this is a presumption
> not a conclusion.
>
> It amazes me just how stupid they are.
>
> But it's more than half the US population and they both vote and get
> elected including to school boards.
An outdated institution that should be done away with along with elected
judges.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> skrev i meddelelsen
Which ain't going to happen with the downhill spiral into
fundamentalism.
Josef Balluch
> Jason :
...
>> But how do we
>> know that nature requires no help from a designing intelligence?
>> Certainly, in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to
>> SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a
>> designing intelligence is indispensable.
>
> Duh! Of _course_ a search for an extraterrestrial INTELLIGENCE
> _would_ appeal to INTELLIGENCE. None has been found,
> and no gods have been found. NONE. Not ONE.
Dembski's argument quickly collapses under it's own weight when we ask the
question: Who designed the designer?
...
>> Specified complexity: the characteristic trademark or signature of
>> intelligence.
So Dembski asserts, without support. The use of terms like "specified" in
this context means that the argument assumes it's conclusion of intelligent
design, since Dembski has not shown that complexity needs to be specified.
Regards,
Josef
Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
Andre Lieven
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:50:20 -0800 (PST), Andre Lieven
I'd certainly enjoy watching Dembski squirm under the gaze of Doctor
Manhattan...
<g>
Andre
Budikka666
[Plagiarized Dembski bullshit flushed where it belongs]
Dembski is so ancient as to be completely irrelevant today. The new
ID Kiddie on the block is Stephen Meyer.
Why is that? Has he overturned the Theory of Evolution? Nope.
Well has he published a science paper offering positive evidence for
divine design? No, don't be silly, no creationist in 150 years has
ever been able to do that.
So what did he do? Well he's a creationist, so it's quite obvious -
he wrote a book *instead* of doing science, and he just got his dumb
ass kicked twice:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/01/signature-in-th-1.html
and
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/signature-in-th.html
and even Christians are blasting Meyer:
http://arrowthroughthesun.blogspot.com/2009/11/book-review-signature-in-cell.html
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 12:44�am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>[Plagiarized Dembski bullshit flushed where it belongs]
>
>Dembski is so ancient as to be completely irrelevant today. The new
>ID Kiddie on the block is Stephen Meyer.
Oops, how soon will you accuse him of running away?
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Ken
Tim Miller
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:49:39 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 4, 12:44 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>> [Plagiarized Dembski bullshit flushed where it belongs]
>>
>> Dembski is so ancient as to be completely irrelevant today. The new
>> ID Kiddie on the block is Stephen Meyer.
>
> Oops, how soon will you accuse him of running away?
Immediately. Just like you run away from your "ball on a string",
liar!
LOL!!
huge
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:00:22 -0600, huge wrote:
>
>
>> Jason :
>
>
> ...
>
>
>>> But how do we
>>> know that nature requires no help from a designing intelligence?
>>> Certainly, in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology
>>> to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a
>>> designing intelligence is indispensable.
>>
>> Duh! Of _course_ a search for an extraterrestrial INTELLIGENCE _would_
>> appeal to INTELLIGENCE. None has been found, and no gods have been
>> found. NONE. Not ONE.
>
>
> Dembski's argument quickly collapses under it's own weight when we ask
> the question: Who designed the designer?
That's the question these Gomers most often choose to ignore.
Sometimes you have to insist on asking it a number of times before
they come up with some special pleading.
>
>
> ...
>
>
>>> Specified complexity: the characteristic trademark or signature of
>>> intelligence.
>
>
> So Dembski asserts, without support. The use of terms like "specified"
> in this context means that the argument assumes it's conclusion of
> intelligent design, since Dembski has not shown that complexity needs to
> be specified.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Josef
>
>
> Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.
>
> -- Robert Green Ingersoll
--
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
89.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> By William A. Dembski
Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Pray for Goppers the way they pray for Obama! Psalm 109!
hypa...@comcast.net
Then he'll tell us how wonderful traitor Bush was and
how smart and winkie pretty Palin is. You betcha!
hypa...@comcast.net
They're trying to annoy us by showing how stupid they are.
hypa...@comcast.net
I think it would be the other way around. Though,
the hats would still look better on them.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 14:49:39 -0800 (PST), Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 4, 12:44 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >[Plagiarized Dembski bullshit flushed where it belongs]
>
> >Dembski is so ancient as to be completely irrelevant today. The new
> >ID Kiddie on the block is Stephen Meyer.
>
> Oops, how soon will you accuse him of running away?
>
write a lot, but you say nothing.
Ah, you've added the creationism newsgroup to
the newsgroup line. But, they already know how
ignorant you are about religion and history. Even
them. You must enjoy embarrassing yourself in
multiple newsgroups. Why else would you
crosspost to them?