Re: Challenge to Intelligent Design practitioners

On Mar 24, 6:25 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<pcl6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174772679.002233.72420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 4:35 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174763076.786185.159210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 1:59 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174762539.596981.36850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 1:46 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174760439.221181.215580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 1:06 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>

You are right that this kind of challenge can be illuminating, but in this
case I think that the illumination reveals that snex and pcl6510 don't
understand the ID position and have no intention of learning something about
it.

if dembski can determine that bacteria flagella were designed,

Er... Do you mean Behe?

no, dembski claims that DNA contains CSI.

he can
determine that certain radio signals are designed.

The inference that flagella are designed arises from the 'irreducible
complexity' of the structure, which in turn depends on the known function
of the structure.

Point out the function of your radio signal, and perhaps an IDiot will
check to see whether there is IC or CSI there.

it is not my responsibility to point out function. function IS the
specification. it is the responsibility of ID people to determine if
it exists.

he has even claimed
that they could be. you are being absolutely stupid by denying it.

He claimed that cryptography falls under the broad umbrella of ID thinking.
He did not claim any secret new techniques applicable in that field.

no, he claimed that ID theory - specifically his idea of CSI - could
be useful to the field. i am asking that it be applied.

And you are being stupid in continuing to pretend otherwise.

ID people claim they have a piece of science that can detect whether
things are designed or not by finding CSI. if my bit strings are
designed (and not meant to be hidden), then they have CSI. therefore,
they should be able to find the CSI.

And, IIRC, everyone who tried to find it did. Even without using any
kind of esoteric methods known only to "ID practitioners".

they only found it by making assumptions about the intent and methods
of the designer. ID claims that these details are irrelevant.

More precisely, it claims that those details are *unnecessary* in some
cases - for example, the flagellum. And they have to claim that, since
they wish to pretend that ID can be practiced while still adhering to
methodological naturalism. I claim that it can't, but that the fact that
you need to sacrifice naturalism, by itself, should not mean that it
shouldn't be practiced at all.

If you sacrifice ``methodological naturalism'' does that mean you
believe in paranormal explanation?

If you sacrifice methodological naturalism, you certainly open the door
to non-natural explanations. Call them 'paranormal' if you wish. But
the fact that you have opened the door does not commit you to embrace
whatever walks in!

You were pretty adamant that
people who think intelligent design might prove useful for learning
about the world were not claiming to have paranormal abilities. If I
were a psychoanalyst I would think that your protests to the contrary,
arising out of nothing I said, reveal something about your
subconscious motivations. (Note, as addressed in our initial
exchange, sarcasm and jest do not carry well over this medium . . .
you'll just have to trust that I have no malicious intent.)

I'm not sure I followed that. But my suggestion that you were imputing
paranormal ability claims to IDiots arose from the structure of your challenge,
which is similar in structure to an anti-paranormal challenge, but seems to
have no other redeeming qualities.

I'm pretty sure I said that the person who thinks intelligent design
might be useful for figuring out something about the world could use
any technique he or she wanted, aside from direct observation, or
whatnot. So, I don't think the structure of my game (which, I also
noted, was meant to be a prototypical example of an abstract game)
implies anything whatsoever about what might be tested.

Now listen here, you accused me of setting up a strawman, and you are
claiming that my game is just some lowbrow ``anti--paranormal''
challenge. I probably should accuse you of the same.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to Intelligent Design practitioners
    ... understand the ID position and have no intention of learning something about ... check to see whether there is IC or CSI there. ... about the world were not claiming to have paranormal abilities. ... I'm pretty sure I said that the person who thinks intelligent design ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Appearance of Chance (Dembskis bombshell)
    ... But Wilkins, as far as I can tell, argues that said qualifiers are ... Darwinian evolution, which is the only evolution accepted by ... The *observation* of Intelligence and Design seen in every aspect ... CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: ID theory "tests" for design on a case by case basis; this is a significant deviation from creat
    ... theory argues that the process of executing a design plan (regardless ... (CSI)" being "embedded" in the objects of that activity. ... the action of an intelligent agent. ... and measure CSI from sequence information alone. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: John Harshman, where is your post?
    ... atheism) would deny that development is designed. ... that natural selection can produce results that are similar to human design. ... generalizations about the causal history of embryos or about any ... meet the requirements to be characterized as CSI. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CSI, by itself, does not = ID
    ... figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI. ... or not detect a bias in a pattern of numbers is the same thing IDists ... when exposed to various kinds of non-deliberate forces of nature. ... But wasn't ID supposed to be a method that was able to detect "design" ...
    (talk.origins)