Watch as scordova worms his way out of doing a demonstration of the The Explanatory Filter, the masterwork of ID that does not work!Much better than the EF itself is Håkan Rosén's brilliant Imploratory Filter:
Apologies for reposting this, but the IF may well shake the foundations of Dembskism.1. Does the text advocate a pro-ID stance?
2. Is it possible than someone could have written the text as a joke?
3. Does it look as if the writer is trying to hide the fact the the writing is a hoax?Only if the answers to the first two questions are yes do we proceed to question three. This is important since we know that people do write pro-ID hoaxes. Pro-ID hoaxes just don't materialize from writings about Goethe or Homer. The third stage of the Imploratory Filter presents us with a binary choice: attribute the thing we are trying to examine to deliberate deception if it appears joke-like; otherwise, attribute it to self-deception. In the first case, the writing we are trying to examine is not only pro-ID, but also appears joke-like. In the other, it is pro-ID, but appears deluded. It is the category of joke-like writings having a pro-ID stance that reliably signals a hoax. "Non-funny" writings advocating ID, on the other hand, are properly attributed to self-deception.
The last thing we need to consider is the case of false positives and false negatives. This method can, unfortunately, yield false negatives. It is possible that some piece of writing might be labelled a non-hoax, when it in fact is a hoax. On the other hand, the method yields no false positives. I.e., when the filter claims that a writing really is a pro-ID hoax, it will will never turn out to be a non-hoax.
The Imploratory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to self-deception or hoaxes. In particular, the Filter describes:
* how Michael Egnor is still allowed to post for the DI.
* how Casey Luskin can keep repeating that ID can make predictions.
* how Dembski can claim that the explanatory filter yields no false positives even though it measures design via specified complexity of which irreducible complexity is a subclass. Irreducible complexity, in turn, allows for false positives.
35 comments:
ID does make predictions- read "No Free Lunch".
Does the theory of evolution make any predictions beyond change or stasis? No.
And just how does irreducible complexity allow for false positives?
BTW the EF is the best process we have for determing design without being biased towards that end.
Just how do you think scientists detect design? Do you think they flip a coin?
Also the only flaw with the EF is the people/ person using it.
One more thingy- the EF is not the master work of ID. Even Dembski calls it SOP (standard operating procedure).
Hi Joe,
Glad to see you respond, though you should know, if you click on the link in the first post, that this blog is a joke that was created so that Dembski and his minions couldn't get access to the domain.
But since you've asked, I've read No Free Lunch and consider it deeply flawed. I don't think Dembski's notion of chance deals properly with systems that are outcomes of elaborate combinations of chance and necessity. I also think he uses "complexity" and "information" in nonstandard and equivocating ways (and continues to do so, viz. his creation of the term "active information," which nobody else uses, more recently. Everything is solved by a new term, I guess.)
H
But since you've asked, I've read No Free Lunch and consider it deeply flawed.
Well I have studied biology for decades and I know the theory of evolution is deeply flawed.
For example in this, the 21st century, we still don't know if any amount of accumulated mutations can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans.
Universal common descent is not objectively testable.
I don't think Dembski's notion of chance deals properly with systems that are outcomes of elaborate combinations of chance and necessity.
I have heard this before but never has anyone said anything to substantiate it.
As a matter of fact that very thing is explained in NFL- that chance is considered as any and every combo of chance and necessity.
I also think he uses "complexity" and "information" in nonstandard and equivocating ways.
Just saying that is what you think is meaningless. Provide a demonstration.
Joe,
Congratulations on your long study of biology, which apparently hasn't brought you closer to the overwhelming consensus among working biologists.
Earlier you wrote, "Does the theory of evolution make any predictions beyond change or stasis? No."
Well, let me give you an example. It's old, I know, but it's still good. Back in the early 20th century, when evolution had not yet met up with genetics, the theory of evolution had a problem. (1) How could traits be retained, even strengthened, from generation to generation? (2) And was there a single way of encoding these traits that worked for all organisms? Solving the first problem was essential, and a yes answer to the second would be sweet.
Lo and behold, first the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 30s and 40s answers (1), and then the discovery of DNA structure gives a big "Yes" to (2). When Watson and Crick write their paper in 1953, their last sentence is a classic understatement: "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." They can hardly contain their glee.
So, as for chimps and humans, we have a hard time getting from DNA to physiology, but that's because we have a hard time getting from one to the other generally. (Figure that out and we'll advance medicine and quick.) Meanwhile, we do know, as predicted by evolution, that the basic code uses the exact same chemistry.
Are you saying that the difference between humans and chimps is non-material?
Congratulations on your long study of biology, which apparently hasn't brought you closer to the overwhelming consensus among working biologists.
Whatever. Not one of those working biologists can accopunt for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans.
Not one of those working biologists can demonstrate that a pop[ulation of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms.
And not one can find anything that gets around the observed wobbling stability.
I also asked for predictions made by the theory of evolution. And you said:
Meanwhile, we do know, as predicted by evolution, that the basic code uses the exact same chemistry.
That isn't a prediction made by the theory of evolution.
Common design is a better explanation for the fundamentalunity in the genetic code.
That is because the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about origins. The theory would be perfectly OK if we didn't see that fundamental unity. That would be explained by multiple origins of multiple codes.
Are you saying that the difference between humans and chimps is non-material?
No one knows. Not even your working biologists.
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
"The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
Hilarious. Your link to "common design" is an article you have stolen from Talk Origins with the word "descent" replaced by "design." Nice. But of course this is a massive abuse of the literature. Hinegardner and Engelberg 1963 (which I have read) do not, for example, hold a design view but rather an evolutionary view.
Your link to "common design" is an article you have stolen from Talk Origins with the word "descent" replaced by "design."
Yes I know. The original article was in error and I corrected it.
But of course this is a massive abuse of the literature.
And I say the "abuse" is all Theobald's.
I would also say that evolutionists are abusing the data.
Did you notice that Theobald did not say anything about a mechanism? In fact he says the evidence holds independent of mechanisms.
BTW ID is not anti-evolution.
The debate is all about the mechanism- design vs ns acting on random mutations.
The abuse was yours.
Did you even read the papers cited? They are not written from a design perspective, and yet you "wrote": "exactly as predicted by evolutionary biologists based on the theory of common design." No such theory is operative in the papers you cite.
Joe wrote:
"Does the theory of evolution make any predictions beyond change or stasis? No."
Yes. Try the superimposable nested hierarchies, which you clearly don't understand.
Joe wrote:
"Also the only flaw with the EF is the people/ person using it [the EF]."
Then why, after more than 9 years, hasn't Dembski or anyone else used the EF on a biological system?
Yes, Joe, be the first.
Use the EF! EF! EF! EF! EF!
Your fans are frothing at the mouth, Joe. Appease them by doing some actual work!
Then why, after more than 9 years, hasn't Dembski or anyone else used the EF on a biological system?
Dembski did exactly that in NFL.
"Does the theory of evolution make any predictions beyond change or stasis? No."
Yes. Try the superimposable nested hierarchies, which you clearly don't understand.
I understand nested hierarchy and I know the theory of evolution didn't predict it.
Denton refuted that notion in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".
-----------------------------------
Herm:
Did you even read the papers cited?
Yes I read the papers and I know they weren't written from a design perspective.
UCD does not predict a fundamental unity. There is no limitations as to what can be gained or lost.
"Evolution" is not a progression.
Joe, "Yes I read the papers and I know they weren't written from a design perspective."
Really. You read all the papers cited in the paper you stole. Impressive. As a plagiarist, you're better than my students.
But if you know they weren't written from a design perspective, why did you say at least some of them were "exactly as predicted by evolutionary biologists based on the theory of common design"?
Boy are you stupid, Hermagoras!!!!
I mean, hasn't Joe sufficiently explained that things that float around in the ether can be perfectly valid Theories?
I'll bet Joe thinks that theories (all theories) just float around whole and we pick them clean out of the ether.
So it doesn't matter that there isn't a Theory of Common Design--it has always existed and Dumbski knew that and was referring to that Platonic Ideal of Theory in his writings. The rest of us are just too stupid to look away from the fire.
Joe wrote:
"I understand nested hierarchy and I know the theory of evolution didn't predict it."
That's the first I've heard of that. What's the only figure in Origin of Species, Joe?
"Denton refuted that notion in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"."
Denton refuted himself in "Nature's Destiny."
Why hasn't Denton produced any new data from his hypotheses?
I asked:
"Then why, after more than 9 years, hasn't Dembski or anyone else used the EF on a biological system?"
Joe replied:
"Dembski did exactly that in NFL."
To what biological system did he apply it, and on which pages?
"Well I have studied biology for decades and I know the theory of evolution is deeply flawed."
Plus, he's got a degree in electronics engineering, so come on - clearly he is an expert in biology!
As a plagiarist, you're better than my students.
I gave full credit to talk origins and Dr Theobald.
How does that qualify as plagiarism?
Hey doppleganger,
At least I was aware of the fact that spiders have femurs.
You, on the other hand, had to try to argue that point.
Metazoans are complex electrical systems. My expertise is in complex electrical systems.
To smokey,
Just because Darwin has a figure of nested hierarchy in his book that doesn't mean NH was an expected outcome.
Darwin used well-timed extinctions to account for NH.
As for the EF the only problem seems to come from anti-IDists who think it is Dembski's construct. Yet even he says it is SOP.
I'm still going to say the only problem with the EF is that no one has used it because it is an unusable ball of crap.
Care to work an example, Joe?
SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK!
I'm still going to say the only problem with the EF is that no one has used it because it is an unusable ball of crap.
Then perhaps you can tell us how scientists determine the presence of intentional design when conducting an investigation.
Please present the methodology used.
They have to have a process- one that is repeatable and open to verification.
What is it?
We've done this before, Joe. But not on this blog, so I'll do it again.
Investigating a dig site:
I come across something that doesn't look like a rock. It's flat, a little pointy and slightly rounded.
I know that humans have been making pottery for thousands of years. I know that pottery looks a little like this shard.
By knowing something about the designer, I can reasonably say this shard was designed. Without knowing anything about the designer, I cannot tell that this was designed.
Yes we have been down this road before.
I asked for how scientists do it.
I do not care how a dumbass clown would go about it.
Using your "method" living organisms are the result of ID because we have observed genetic engineers.
Thanks.
Funnier, Joe. You need to work on funnier.
A question:
Have you observed a genetically engineered human?
If so, how would the EF be able to differentiate it from a real human? Or would it be able to? Why or why not?
Since I have never observed extra genetically engineered living organisms strewn about the woods (or especially in a 2600 year old dig site), I'll have to say that I would rule out genetically engineered material out of the dig site.
Have you ever observed nature, operating freely, give rise to a living orhganism from non-living matter?
I have observed engineers design and construct complex electrical and chemical systems. Metazoans are complex electrical and chemical systems.
If you want funny and funnier- just look in the mirror, turmn away and look again.
I take it clowny isn't goiung to present the methodolgy that scientists use to determine intentional design from nature, operating freely.
Typical.
In our experience, the only thing that we know designs anything is humans.
We know what kind of things are useful to us. We have memories and can write stuff down. In this way we have knowledge of humans (and other creatures) from the past. By knowing what sorts of things humans design and have designed in the past, we conclude that the useful stuff (pottery, buildings, transport vehicles, tools, etc) we find laying around was designed--by humans.
Until the observation that some other primates construct simple tools, we would always conclude that the designed stuff we see came from humans. This would be wrong (though very rarely). But, with the advent of new knowledge about other designers, we can conclude that some simple tools may have been constructed by chimps.
The common thread to everything we claim is designed is that we know the designer and theorize about the purpose of the the designed object.
We do not theorize about the nature of the designer based on a found object. We may think about the qualities of the designer but not his nature.
Everything else is attributed to natural causes.
If you think this is not true, provide an example of an object that we know is designed that was not designed by primates (or, for that matter, by an unknown designer).
In our experience, the only thing that we know designs anything is humans.
But we know that beavers design dams and lodges. We know that termites design mounds. Bees design hives.
We also know that ants are another species that domesticates another species!
The common thread to everything we claim is designed is that we know the designer and theorize about the purpose of the the designed object.
That's false. The only way to make any determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question.
Again I ask you to present the scientific methodology.
This time try using some actual scientific references.
Again I ask you to provide an example of something that we know is designed for which we know nothing about the designer.
How is it we know that dams are designed by beavers?
Perhaps because we know something about beavers? Or, even a step further--we have ourselves dammed a river, so that we might suspect that a dam is indeed designed. BECAUSE WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE.
A tangle of trees forming a dam we might also attribute to design (even though it was washed into its present form by a flood). Why would we do this? Because we've dammed a river before and we know something of the designer.
Now this would be a false positive (the dam was not designed at all, but merely an accident), but we might label it design at first because we know something of a designer.
Notice that in any case we still don't attribute design without knowing anything about our designer.
That is how it's done.
Now about your example of a designed object from an unknown designer...
Ah, for a guy who sure spouts off about his toughness all the time, Joe...you sue don't hang around long.
Any reason for that?
Yes clowny- the reason is you guys are too stupid to deal with.
If any of you had half the IQ that I have then you would know that to refute ID all you need to do is actually substantiate your anti-ID position.
Ya see clowny we don't have to know that beavers build dams in order to come across a beaver dam and determine that it was not the result of nature, operating freely.
We don't have to know anything about beavers to make that determination.
Reality demonstrates that one doesn't have to know anything about the designer in order to infer design. All one has to know is what nature, opertaing freely can produce.
Then once that is eliminated what do you think is left?
And I'm still waiting for your references.
A clown's "say-so" doesn't get any mileage...
Interesting, Joe. I noticed that you neglected to tell us how we might know that a beaver dam is designed without knowing anything about the designer.
Any reason for that? Just saying I'm wrong really doesn't hold much water. Now, saying I'm wrong then ACTUALLY GIVING A COUNTER ARGUMENT would be a lot better.
What's the matter? Still trying to figure out how we know a beaver dam is designed?
Let us know when you figure it out.
Oh, Joe. Congratulations on your 277+ IQ. That must be some sort of record. DaveScot must be jealous.
I'm sorry, was I low? 293+?
Post a Comment