Dr Funkenstein offered some more thoughts on Darwinian evolution. He provoked me to check out TalkOrigins some, which is usually a stimulating activity and one I wish I had more time for, b/c it's highly regarded among Darwinists.
in the 1st i'm asking you if things have tell-tale signs of design, yet everything is designed, what is the point of comparison you are using for these tell tale signs if no undesigned thing exists?
On the one hand, I recognise the failure of the atheist worldview, so I conclude that everything is designed - everythg is created by God.
On the other, ToE provides no answer to the problem of information in organisms, specifically the origin of that info. It also fails to provide any mechanism that can be observed to take care of the problem of variety of organisms arising from an allegedly common ancestor. That is, I ask for examples of evol at work and I get mosquitoes evolving into mosquitoes, lizards into lizards, bacteria into bacteria, etc. Or question-begging appeals to "the fossil record".
But getting back to the foundation of this point, it goes like this:
1) ID-ist says he sees design.
2) ToE-ist says oh yeah? This and that are BAD design (aka BEAR 3).
3) ID-ist responds that bad design is...design.
That this is a response to an attempted Darwinian rebuttal is important to remember. It's not really well-suited as a positive argument for ID.
On the 2nd I'm saying that even if we accept everything is designed, how are we deciding what constitutes good and bad design?
I don't see how that's relevant in the slightest.
Besides, YOU are the one who brought up "bad design". Why don't you tell me? Make sure you're providing a consistent logical standard for knowing.
If our point of comparison for design is human designed things (and from the words of the ID crowd it often is - eg Watches, Mt Rushmore etc), then we can quite easily point out things that a human designer would avoid were they designing an organism.
I doubt any ID-ist has ever hypothesised that the Designer always did everything perfectly well and also preserved it perfectly in line with that perfection. (Sin, the Fall, remember?)
Besides, I hate to have to keep saying this, but bad design is still design. And humans have designed quite a few things badly, only to go back later and improve them. I mean, why were computer monitors originally all in green and black? Didn't their designers know that it would be far better just to use plasma flat screens at 1080p resolution and full color?
Apparently very few philosophers are out and out materialists
Good, b/c materialism is beyond ridiculous.
Which Dembski has no consistent description or metric for.
Meyer does, in his Signature In the Cell book. Page 86 says:
"Webster's, for instance, has a second definition that defines information as 'the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences of arrangements of sthg that produce specific effect.' Info, according to this definition, equals an arrangement or string of characters, specifically one that accomplishes a particular outcome or performs a communication function." I'd recommend his book to you, chapter 4 in particular on that count.
Only if you ignore hundreds of examples from the real world
This article gets it wrong b/c it includes crystals and gasoline explosions as "information". Meyer's, and I'm pretty sure Dembski's, specifies that info is not endlessly repetitive. What do crystals and explosions communicate, exactly?
This article is unintentionally funny.
1) One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.
Are you serious? This is Darwinism of the gaps (aka BEAR 2) Maybe I'll just use that response for the rest of my blogging career.
2) Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.
Really? What info would that be?
3) In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior.
a. Abiogenesis has not been observed.
b. "Complex organic molecules" are a very, very long way from even the simplest life form.
c. So...if I leave some inanimate object out in the sun long enough, I can expect its information content and its organisation to INCREASE? Like a newspaper...will it tell me a different frontpage story after a couple decades of sun exposure or exposure to heat? Cool! Who did that experiment?
This article gets the following wrong:
1) rejecting chance requires a complete list of all chance processes that might apply to the event.
Darwinism of the gaps, again.
2) Individually, (regularity, chance, and design) were due to chance, but collectively they were governed by laws, and all of this was planned by God (Ruse 2001, 121).
Um, so God designed that scenario, right?
3) And what the filter actually detects is copying, not intelligent agency.
What other process have you observed that copies information?
4) Thus, the design process must have another design process to produce it, which needs a design process of its own, ad infinitum, or somewhere along the way there must be no process at all and design must come out of nowhere.
Now I'm just laughing. All of a sudden, TalkOrigins forgot that the ID-ist thinks there was a Designer, who sort of started everything. Or you might say who designed everything. Crazy!
IOW, don't project your own problem of infinite regress onto ID.
(it seems rather bizarre, since as Paul C pointed out your criteria are self-refuting to start with (eg asking for experimental evidence with the proviso that no experimenter can be involved in the study)
Correct. The big, big problem you're overlooking is that YOU are the one who is trying to leave a designer out of the equation. And then you try to prove it by designing experiments. It's showing the absurdity of your position on its own merits. You can see the self-refuting nature of it, why don't you apply it all the way thru?
Let me try to explain it from another angle. You posit all-natural unguided processes that got life where it is today, w/o an intelligent designer. You attempt to prove the existence and power of these processes by intelligently designing a lab, intelligently designing tools, intelligently designing a hypothesis, intelligently designing a means to test, intelligently, that hypothesis, intelligently manipulating the control and the test groups which you intelligently grouped, intelligently limiting the environment to which the subjects of the test are exposed, and intelligently figuring an intelligent conclusion. Then you come back and say, "Voilà! Unguided processes are proven! No need for an intelligent designer!" No, you've shown nothing of the kind. In reality, you have no hope of ever performing an experiment that could bolster your case for unguided processes. You can thus never observe this unguided process doing what you claim it can do and did do, for which there's some mountain of evidence. The problem is all yours. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in your claims vs what you can actually deliver, and so it's for that reason that Paul C was correct.
See, it's times like this where we see just what you value, and it's always evolution over truth. Your faith, your religion, is threatened, so you circle the wagons.
the fact that letting an experiment free run to a conclusion that occurs independent of the experimenter's wishes/preferences is about as opposite from ID as you can get
1) Not an experiment that is, to repeat the obvious and beat the dead horse, designed by intelligent agents in a lab that was intelligently designed and constructed and which was launched by intelligent agents.
Any reader should be able to see here the living, beating heart of your presuppositions behind the scenes, clouding your reason and turning you against the obvious. Behold the power of presuppositions, if you doubt them! Dr Funk will not accept anything outside of his materialistic presuppositions, despite the obvious reasons for doing just that.
2) Which would, worst case for me, fit under the ID umbrella as the equivalent of a deistic scenario. But you're dead set against ID. Another problem for your position.
you've assumed something along the lines of "the more uniform and longer a sequence is, the more information it has"
No, I don't think that's Meyer's argument. ISTM the most important element of information is its direction towards function, towards producing a specific effect or communicating so as to create something that functions.
in info theory the complete opposite is true as the more random a sequence it is the more difficult it becomes to compress and a longer sequence can be less complex than a short one
Well, sure. But no one's arguing that length is the only component here. Information can be short.
"I'm out back" contains the same # of characters (incl spaces) as "jffngikd87ff", and fewer than "dfafaiqwu340quefnqelrnqwflnad;f435q345243543", but it communicates sthg.
DNA's high information content is prima facie evidence it resulted, in part, from an essentially random process.
Sorry, I don't see why I should accept that given that my entire experience indicates that intelligent agents and only intelligent agents produce information.
there are mutations that insert bases as well as delete or swap them. this is 1st year level genetics/mol biol knowledge
Yes, I know that, but they're almost never useful or helpful. And even when they are, they are not numerous, and combined with a bunch of other nonhelpful ones, why should anyone think they'd lead to benefit?
duplication of genes/chromosomes (eg polyploidy) isn't unusual either (especially in organisms like plants)
Photocopying a page of a book doesn't increase information at all.