Here's another good article on problems with Dembski's specification concept:

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#appendix

(I was looking for it when I found the above "How Not To Detect Design"; it was tucked in the appendix!)

What strikes me as most puzzling about creationists and IDers is that they all would seem to lack the ability to ask themselves how it is that a universe which is sufficiently complex, so as to demand a designer, does not also in turn require a designer whom is equally if not far more complex in its understanding of relations and consequences, hence, requiring fulfillment of the same demand... which leads to a ridiculous, unbreakable chain of intelligent designers, until we are satisfied at the notion that such complexity is simply part of the emerging fabric of universes, at least one of which we do observe, rather than of gods, none of which do we observe.

(December 29, 2016 at 12:54 am)Chas Wrote:

(December 28, 2016 at 12:50 pm)AAA Wrote: You can't just assert that evolution is an adequate cause. he

How much information per generation does natural selection coupled with mutation produce? How many generations have there been? How much information is contained by the genome. Until we know the answer to all three of these we will not know if natural selection+mutation is adequate. 

The algorithm is sufficient to accomplish what we see.  Calculate the number of organisms and reproduction events that have existed in the last 3,000,000,000 years (they are staggeringly large numbers) and you will see that there has been plenty of room for the amount of evolution we observe.

Quote:And you don't think that lifestyle impacts our genetic output? That's like the whole point of epigenetics. Environmental stimuli lead to heritable changes in transcription. Eating meat is not a more efficient means of nutrition. Nut consumption has a much higher assimilation efficiency than meat.

Tell that to the Inuit. Pound for pound, there is far more nutrition in meat than in plant matter.

Quote:Also, you have to consider that the meat itself has disseminated most of the energy of the primary producers when it was alive.

That is a ludicrously incorrect statement.  Pound for pound, there is far more energy content in meat than in plant matter.

Quote:Therefore, skipping the middle man is a much more efficient way to eat from an energy perspective.

See above.

You can't just assert that algorithms show it to be adequate. And I know that there have been a lot of reproductive opportunities, but we do not know how to accurately estimate the number. 

And when you say "there is far more nutrition in meat", you are showing that you don't understand what nutrition means. There are more calories, but you are ignoring the thousands of phytochemicals that we need to get from plant foods. Also, we need sugars, vitamins, minerals that are much more concentrated in plant foods. 

And when you say that is a ludicrously incorrect statement, you must be ignoring how energy moves through trophic levels. When we are eating meat, we are acting as secondary consumers. The primary consumer doesn't consume all the available energy from the producer. They don't assimilate all of the energy that they consume. Then we, as secondary consumers, have the same inefficiency. If we ate plants, we are acting as primary consumers and cutting out the wasted energy of the middle man.

---

(December 29, 2016 at 10:33 am)Tonus Wrote:

(December 29, 2016 at 9:25 am)robvalue Wrote: Instead all he does is try to attack evolution,

And if that's all he wants to do, he's in the wrong place.  Just do the research showing how and where the theory fails, write a peer-reviewed article in a reputable science journal, and watch all of the other dominoes fall.  If the scientific method can be used to lead us to a designer, then it's imperative that those who believe that hypothesis use it to do so-- it would be a monumental discovery with wide-ranging effects for everyone.

I can appeal to peer-reviewed articles if you want. Here are some direct quotes that you may find interesting related to evolution.

"Indeed the eukaryotic genome, rather than being viewed as islands of protein coding genes in an expanding sea of evolutionary junk, may be better thought of as an RNA machine, which expresses a large repetoire of developmentally regulated ncRNAs that are central to the genetic and epigenetic processes that orchestrate the exquisitely precise patterns of gene expression during the ontogeny of multicellular organisms."

Mattick J.S., et al.,2009. RNA regulation of epigenetic processes. BioEssays 31; 51-59.

"The magnitude of the task involved in wiring the nervous system is staggering. In adult humans, each of over a trillion neurons make connection with, on average, over a thousand target cells, in an intricate circuit whose precise pattern is essential for the proper functioning of the nervous system."

Tessier-Lavigne, M., Goodman, C.S., 1996. The molecular biology of axon guidance. Science 274(5290): 1123-33.

Describing sequence comparisons between DNA repair enzymes: "Preliminary comparisons of this kind immediately made it clear that the repair machinery shows considerable variability, in terms of the present and absent genes, even in relatively close bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Hameophilus influenza."

Aravind, L., Walker D.R., Koonin, E.V., 1999. Conserved domains in DNA repair proteins and evolution of repair systems. Nucleic acids res. 27(5): 1223-42.

Hmmm links to those studies?

(December 29, 2016 at 2:48 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(December 28, 2016 at 4:18 pm)AAA Wrote: Do you think that the reason that more educated people tend to be atheists is because the materialistic worldview is the only view taught in schools? More educated = more exposure to materialistic perspective= less religious. 

I also resent the assertion that it is the Christians who are trying to deceive. Did you read the opening question? It is the atheists who have been successful in promoting their worldview as the position of science. I have not heard anyone yet say that atheism and science are directly related, yet that is exactly what many atheists are doing. Also, don't tell me that Christianity is synonymous with "bad science". Young Earth creationism is bad science because they must fit all the evidence into a predetermined worldview, but materialism is guilty of the same charge. Other christian scientists have made highly significant contributions of the world of science.

You are trying to convey the idea that Christians are the ones who are more susceptible to delusion, deception, and immorality, but in you hostility you have made a strong case that you are the one who has been overcome by all three. Sorry, that was a bit harsh, but your comment seemed to be basically implying that Christians are destroyers of reason.

That first paragraph there is utterly and completely ignorant.  I don't mean to offend, but look up the definition for the word "materialistic" and you'll see what I mean.  Materialism is about possessions, having them, coveting them.  That is not what's taught in science class.  Science is the study of the natural universe, not the collection of Beanie Babies.
Yes, I did read the opening question and I answered it thoroughly.  You can resent the assertion that Christians are trying to deceive all you want, it's still true and I can give you sever real-world examples if you like.  I can give you examples in Jehovah's Witness printed materials.  I can give you examples in anti-evolution arguments.  I can give you examples in court cases about religion in schools.  I have actual reasons for my believe that Christians are generally deceptive when speaking to me about their beliefs.  As I stated multiple times, though, I don not think they are intentionally deceptive.
As for the relationship between atheism and science, I already addressed that very thoroughly.  And yes, Christianity IS synonymous with "bad science".  Christians can do good science.  Christians can and do contribute to science.  But whenever CHRISTIANITY (NOT "Christians")  tries to "contribute" to science it is ALWAYS junk science intended to push their beliefs.
Materialism again, huh?  I assume you're familiar with the meme, "You keep saying that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means."  Snookie pushes "a materialistic world view".  Science pushes "reality".  To be materialistic is to desire to collect material possessions.  That is not being pushed in schools, by atheists or by scientists.  I don't know what word you're going for there, but if that's actually the word you intend to use then you have a very warped view of reality.
I never said Christians were more susceptible to immorality, nor did I ever claim they were "more susceptible" to deception.  Delusion, of course I think they're more susceptible to that.  I'm an atheist.
There was no hostility in my response.  I responded directly to the OP with my opinion on the question at hand.  I tried to keep it civil, I made no intentional insults and, looking over it again, it reads like a dry opinion piece without emotion interjected.  It was a recitation of facts as I see them, not an assault.  If you don't want to hear what I have to say on a subject then don't ask the questions.  If you like I can easily give you a very detailed breakdown of a half dozen or so "deceptions" made by Christians off the top of my head.  As I pointed out repeatedly, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Discovery Institute are the biggest perpetrators of these deceptions that I have had experience with.  Though I do associate deception with Christianity in general, these two sources are the ones I look at "extra hard".
But if you think I was being unfair, let me give you one example of what I'm talking about, directly from you.

Quote:Do you think that the reason that more educated people tend to be atheists is because the materialistic worldview is the only view taught in schools?

The deception here?  That a "materialistic worldview" is somehow related to science, which is taught in schools, which means a materialistic worldview is taught in schools because of science.  But "materialism" is not what your usage of the word suggests it is.  Do I think you are purposely trying to pull the wool over my eyes?  Of course not.  Why did you use that word, and use it so wrong?  Because "materialistic" sounds bad.  In our heads it relates to being greedy and shallow, because, by the correct usage of the word, that's what it is.  The word invokes a negative image in our heads, and you certainly wanted to invoke a negative image when talking about "not your beliefs" being taught in schools.  You used that word, not because you, personally, were trying to deceive me, but because you, yourself, were deceived into thinking that the word "materialistic", a word which invokes bad associations in our heads, was the right word to use to describe "the study of the natural (or "material") world".

THIS is what I'm talking about.  Not that you're some jackass who wants to trick me into following something you know to be false, or whatever you thought I meant.  I have to check everything you say to find out what words you're misusing.  I have to think about everything you say to find out what concepts you're abusing.  Not because you're inherently deceitful, as you seem to have taken it, but (and I'm sorry, but it's true) because you're inherently ignorant of basic scientific understanding.  If you were not then you would not have thought that the word "materialistic" IN ANY WAY describes ANYTHING even REMOTELY related to "science".  I have to double-check even your most basic understanding of science, right down to the usage of any word not used in our ordinary, daily lives.  And I don't mean that to insult you.  Unlike you, I don't take what you say personally.  Our opinions and viewpoints differ, and I'm really okay with that.  I don't mind that you believe something different then me.  I only care when Christians try to push their beliefs on my kids, which is YET ANOTHER reason I see Christians as deceitful.  More than one Christian family has tried to "sneak" Christianity to my children behind my back, specifically and purposefully without me knowing.  Is that not the very definition of "deceitful"?

I have reasons for believing the things that I believe.  I'm not just being a dick about it.  And you have reasons for believing the things you believe.  The only difference is that mine are good reasons...

Look up scientific materialism:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions. Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. 

That's how I was using the word, and it was used correctly. That takes care of about 99/100 ths of your reply.

Also, I don't disagree with the fact that some Christians are trying to deceive, but the idea that Christians can't be good scientists is ridiculous. Also, I disagree with your assertion that I'm inherently ignorant of basic scientific understanding.

---

(December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Hmmm links to those studies?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9973609
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8895455
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar...45acf7.pdf

Quote:And when you say "there is far more nutrition in meat", you are showing that you don't understand what nutrition means. There are more calories, but you are ignoring the thousands of phytochemicals that we need to get from plant foods. Also, we need sugars, vitamins, minerals that are much more concentrated in plant foods.

That's because we're omnivores.

(December 29, 2016 at 9:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(December 28, 2016 at 12:50 pm)AAA Wrote: You are missing the point. I don't have to know how something was designed to rationally conclude that it was. And it isn't like we are just looking at biological systems and saying that it just looks designed, it is that we have dissected them to their most fundamental levels in many cases, and intelligent design currently stands alone as the only known force capable of producing it.

Incorrect.  You are the one who has missed the point, which is, the reason we know that cars are designed is BECAUSE we have overwhelming evidence of the design, as well as the designer.  You can't possibly be going for the watchmaker analogy, can you?  It's so famously flawed.  I would have thought a Christian who's been around the block about this as many times as you would have learned better by now...[emoji848]

So you disagree that we can identify design without knowing the mechanism of design or knowledge of who the designer is. I understand that living systems reproduce, and that you think that the increase in information content and complexity as they do so, but you have to ask yourself how complex (or informaiton rich) the first reproducing system is in order to address it.

---

(December 30, 2016 at 11:38 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Quote: The Specification Condition

To reject Chance, the evidence E must be “specified.” This involves four conditions -- CINDE, TRACT, DELIM, and the description D* that you use to delimit E must have a low probability on the Chance hypothesis. We consider these in turn.

CINDE

Dembski says several times that you can’t reject a Chance hypothesis just because it says that what you observe was improbable. If Jones wins a lottery, you can’t automatically conclude that there is something wrong with the hypothesis that the lottery was fair and that Jones bought just one of the 10,000 tickets sold. To reject Chance, further conditions must be satisfied. CINDE is one of them.

CINDE means conditional independence. This is the requirement that Pr(E | H & I) = Pr(E | H), where H is the Chance hypothesis, E is the observations, and I is your background knowledge. H must render E conditionally independent of I. CINDE requires that H capture everything that your background beliefs say is probabilistically relevant to the occurrence of E.

CINDE is too lenient on Chance hypotheses -- it says that their violating CINDE suffices for them to be accepted (or not rejected). Suppose you want to explain why Smith has lung cancer (E). It is part of your background knowledge (I) that he smoked cigarettes for thirty years, but you are considering the hypothesis (H) that Smith read the works of Ayn Rand and that this helped bring about his illness. To investigate this question, you do a statistical study and discover that smokers who read Rand have the same chance of lung cancer as smokers who do not. This study allows you to draw a conclusion about Smith -- that Pr(E | H&I) = Pr(E | not-H &I). Surely this equality is evidence against the claim that E is due to H. However, the filter says that you can’t reject the causal claim, because CINDE is false -- Pr(E | H&I) [is not equal to] Pr(E | H).6

TRACT and DELIM

The ideas examined so far in the Filter are probabilistic. The TRACT condition introduces concepts from a different branch of mathematics – the theory of computational complexity. TRACT means tractability – to reject the Chance hypothesis, it must be possible for you to use your background information to formulate a description D* of features of the observations E. To construct this description, you needn’t have any reason to think that it might be true. For example, you could satisfy TRACT by obtaining the description of E by “brute force” – that is, by producing descriptions of all the possible outcomes, one of which happens to cover E (150- 151). Whether you can produce a description depends on the language and computational framework used. For example, the evidence in the Caputo example can be thought of as a specific sequence of 40 Ds and 1 R. TRACT would be satisfied if you have the ability to generate all of the following descriptions: “0 Rs and 41 Ds,” “1 R and 40 Ds,” “2 Rs and 39 Ds,” ... “41 Rs and 0 Ds.”

Whether you can produce these descriptions depends on the character of the language you use (does it contain those symbols or others with the same meaning?) and on the computational procedures you use to generate descriptions (does generating those descriptions require a small number of steps, or too many for you to perform in your lifetime?). Because tractability depends on your choice of language and computational procedures, we think that TRACT has no evidential significance at all. Caputo’s 41 decisions count against the hypothesis that he used a fair coin, and in favor of the hypothesis that he cheated, for reasons that have nothing to do with TRACT. The relevant point is simply that Pr(E|Chance) << Pr(E|Design). This fact is not relative to the choice of language or computational framework.

The DELIM condition, as far as we can see, adds nothing to TRACT. A description D*, generated by one’s background information, “delimits” the evidence E just in case E entails D*. In the Caputo case, TRACT and DELIM would be satisfied if you were able to write down all possible sequences of D’s and R’s that are 41 letters long. They also would be satisfied by generating a series of weaker descriptions, like the one just mentioned. In fact, just writing down a tautology satisfies TRACT and DELIM (165). On the assumption that human beings are able to write down tautologies, we conclude that these two conditions are always satisfied and so play no substantive role in the Filter.

Do CINDE, TRACT, and DELIM “Call the Chance Hypothesis into Question”?

Dembski argues that CINDE, TRACT and DELIM, if true, “call the chance hypothesis H into question.” We quote his argument in its entirety:

"The interrelation between CINDE and TRACT is important. Because I is conditionally independent of E given H, any knowledge S has about I ought to give S no knowledge about E so long as --- and this is the crucial assumption --- E occurred according to the chance hypothesis H. Hence, any pattern formulated on the basis of I ought not give S any knowledge about E either. Yet the fact that it does in case D delimits E means that I is after all giving S knowledge about E. The assumption that E occurred according to the chance hypothesis H, though not quite refuted, is therefore called into question." (147)

Dembski then adds:

"To actually refute this assumption, and thereby eliminate chance, S will have to do one more thing, namely, show that the probability P(D* | H), that is, the probability of the event described by the pattern D, is small enough." (147)

We'll address this claim about the impact of low probability later.

To reconstruct Dembski's argument, we need to clarify how he understands the conjunction TRACT & DELIM. Dembski says that when TRACT and DELIM are satisfied, your background beliefs I provide you with “knowledge” or “information” about E (143, 147). In fact, TRACT and DELIM have nothing to do with informational relevance understood as an evidential concept. When I provides information about E, it is natural to think that Pr(E | I) [is not equal to] Pr(E); I provides information because taking it into account changes the probability you assign to E. It is easy to see how TRACT & DELIM can both be satisfied by brute force without this evidential condition's being satisfied. Suppose you have no idea how Caputo might have obtained his sequence of D's and R's; still, you are able to generate the sequence of descriptions we mentioned before. The fact that you can generate a description which delimits (or even matches) E does not ensure that your background knowledge provides evidence as to whether E will occur. As noted, generating a tautology satisfies both TRACT and DELIM, but tautologies don't provide information about E.

Even though the conjunction TRACT & DELIM should not be understood evidentially (i.e., as asserting that Pr[E | I] [is not equal to] Pr[E]), we think this is how Dembski understands TRACT & DELIM in the argument quoted. This suggests the following reconstruction of Dembski's argument:

   CINDE, TRACT, and DELIM are true of the chance hypothesis H and the agent S.

   If CINDE is true and S is warranted in accepting H (i.e., that E is due to chance), then S should assign Pr(E | I) = Pr(E).

   If TRACT and DELIM are true, then S should not assign Pr(E | I) = Pr(E).

   Therefore, S is not warranted in accepting H.

Thus reconstructed, Dembski's argument is valid. We grant premiss (1) for the sake of argument. We've already explained why (3) is false. So is premiss (2); it seems to rely on something like the following principle:

(*) If S should assign Pr(E|H&I) = p and S is warranted in accepting H, then S should assign Pr(E|I) = p.

If (*) were true, (2) would be true. However, (*) is false. For (*) entails

If S should assign Pr(H|H) = 1.0 and S is warranted in accepting H, then S should assign Pr(H) = 1.0.

Justifiably accepting H does not justify assigning H a probability of unity. Bayesians warn against assigning probabilities of 1 and 0 to any proposition that you might want to consider revising later. Dembski emphasizes that the Chance hypothesis is always subject to revision.

It is worth noting that a weaker version of (2) is true:

(2*) If CINDE is true and S should assign Pr(H)=1, then S should assign Pr(E | I) = Pr(E).

One then can reasonably conclude that

(4*) S should not assign Pr(H) = 1.

However, a fancy argument isn’t needed to show that (4*) is true. Moreover, the fact that (4*) is true does nothing to undermine S's confidence that the Chance hypothesis H is the true explanation of E, provided that S has not stumbled into the brash conclusion that H is entirely certain. We conclude that Dembski's argument fails to “call H into question.”

It may be objected that our criticism of Dembski's argument depends on our taking the conjunction TRACT & DELIM to have probabilistic consequences. We reply that this is a charitable reading of his argument. If the conjunction does not have probabilistic consequences, then the argument is a nonstarter. How can purely non-probabilistic conditions come into conflict with a purely probabilistic condition like CINDE? Moreover, since TRACT and DELIM, sensu strictu, are always true (if the agent's side information allows him/her to generate a tautology), how could these trivially satisfied conditions, when coupled with CINDE, possibly show that H is questionable?

How Not to Detect Design

I appreciate the fact that you are actually evaluating the argument as opposed to name calling. 

Yes, I am aware that there are problems with the definition of specified. It is incredibly difficult to quantify information in the way that ID opponents demand. What I think Dembski is right about is that the quantity of information of a given sequence is directly proportional to the functionality that arises from said sequence. This is coupled with the fact that gene sequence exhibit an extremely high degree of functionality. While we don't know how to quantify it, this does not mean that we can't draw conclusions based on the qualitative features. I think he was premature in his attempt to draw probabilistic conclusions about these sequences when we don't know how much information we are talking about. However, I think the central argument that DNA contains information and that that information leads to specific functions is true.

(December 30, 2016 at 2:28 pm)AAA Wrote: [quote pid='1477842' dateline='1483062448']

---

I appreciate the fact that you are actually evaluating the argument as opposed to name calling. 

Yes, I am aware that there are problems with the definition of specified. It is incredibly difficult to quantify information in the way that ID opponents demand. What I think Dembski is right about is that the quantity of information of a given sequence is directly proportional to the functionality that arises from said sequence. This is coupled with the fact that gene sequence exhibit an extremely high degree of functionality. While we don't know how to quantify it, this does not mean that we can't draw conclusions based on the qualitative features. I think he was premature in his attempt to draw probabilistic conclusions about these sequences when we don't know how much information we are talking about. However, I think the central argument that DNA contains information and that that information leads to specific functions is true.

[/quote]

So what?
DNA is a part of evolution like everything else.
I fail to see the import you are placing on this.

Science rolls with methodological materialism for a fairly simple reason.  A thermometer measures temperature, not the presence of ghosts.  Similarly, genetic sequencing measures dna, not gods.

(December 30, 2016 at 1:21 pm)Mudhammam Wrote: What strikes me as most puzzling about creationists and IDers is that they all would seem to lack the ability to ask themselves how it is that a universe which is sufficiently complex, so as to demand a designer, does not also in turn require a designer whom is equally if not far more complex in its understanding of relations and consequences, hence, requiring fulfillment of the same demand... which leads to a ridiculous, unbreakable chain of intelligent designers, until we are satisfied at the notion that such complexity is simply part of the emerging fabric of universes, at least one of which we do observe, rather than of gods, none of which do we observe.

Aquinas takes up the notion of Divine Simplicity in Question 3 of the Summa which I doubt many creationists or IDers have read or pondered. My understanding is that complexity arises from the great variety of deficiencies in contingent beings. It is analogous to a thousand different shards produced from a shattered crystal ball.