Comments for ASA Book Discussion http://www.asa3online.org/Book A members' forum for discussion of selected books Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:15:26 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 Comment on ID Prediction #3 by Jon Tandy http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/03/09/id-prediction-3/comment-page-1/#comment-159 Jon Tandy Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:15:26 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=96#comment-159 Randy, You mention two possible outcomes of further research on the RNA world scenario. 1. RNA world proves not up to the task of creating protein and DNA molecules 2. RNA research may prove to have merit, so ID researchers might "give up the faith".  (I'll generalize this as not necessarily giving up religious faith, but the ID proposition of intelligent design. But if such research did prove to have merit, I think there is more likely a third possibility.  If RNA proves to be self-catalytic, so as to be able to create more and more complex structures and complex information such as DNA, doesn't that appear to be a very intelligently designed system?  So, 3. The existence of an RNA self-catalytic process is evidence that there must have been an intelligent designer involved in the creation of RNA. Randy,

You mention two possible outcomes of further research on the RNA world scenario.
1. RNA world proves not up to the task of creating protein and DNA molecules
2. RNA research may prove to have merit, so ID researchers might “give up the faith”.  (I’ll generalize this as not necessarily giving up religious faith, but the ID proposition of intelligent design.

But if such research did prove to have merit, I think there is more likely a third possibility.  If RNA proves to be self-catalytic, so as to be able to create more and more complex structures and complex information such as DNA, doesn’t that appear to be a very intelligently designed system?  So,

3. The existence of an RNA self-catalytic process is evidence that there must have been an intelligent designer involved in the creation of RNA.

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-158 Randy Isaac Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:02:13 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-158 <p>Dave,   If our intent were to understand intelligence in all its aspects, you are right that we haven't covered it all. Our intent however is to consider a system of physical complexity, namely DNA, and consider whether this information complex was derived from an intelligent source. Our focus needs to be on the connection between intelligence and the physical complexity we call information. That's what I tried to do in these posts.   To repeat, information is physical. Without physical complexity there is no information. That information may become useful through functionality or through abstraction in which meaning is attributed to that complexity by an intelligent mind. One cannot always deduce from the physical complexity alone, how it came to be. Scientific explanations must be amenable to independent study so we can determine the source.   Randy</p> Dave,
  If our intent were to understand intelligence in all its aspects, you are right that we haven’t covered it all. Our intent however is to consider a system of physical complexity, namely DNA, and consider whether this information complex was derived from an intelligent source. Our focus needs to be on the connection between intelligence and the physical complexity we call information. That’s what I tried to do in these posts.
  To repeat, information is physical. Without physical complexity there is no information. That information may become useful through functionality or through abstraction in which meaning is attributed to that complexity by an intelligent mind. One cannot always deduce from the physical complexity alone, how it came to be. Scientific explanations must be amenable to independent study so we can determine the source.
  Randy

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-157 Randy Isaac Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:56:29 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-157 <p>Bill,   Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify a very common misperception. Though it seems counterintuitive at first, information actually increases with disorder. You stated "Disorder is in some sense inversely related to what we might mean as “information.”  If this is so..." Actually, they are directly related and information increases as disorder increases.   Consider a simple example of a 1-D row of 10 atoms in equilibrium. There is perfect order--and virtually no information. Remove one atom and put it in between two others. Now you have one vacancy and one interstitial. The disorder (entropy) has increased and so has the information. That applies both to the information required to describe the system and to the information the system can convey.   But information capacity may not be useful, as Meyer points out. That's why he talks about specificity. I used the terms "function" and "meaning" to talk about different ways in which we consider usefulness of information.   I refer you to other comments I've made in this thread that are along the same lines. The key point is that there is no principle that says information cannot increase without an intelligent source. Physical complexity (i.e. entropy) can indeed increase and usefulness can be selected by what works.    By any measure of information, the antibody example shows a clear increase in information. The initial state is one of a large population of identical cells. The next state is one of a large population of cells which are all different. That is an unequivocal increase in the amount of information by any measure.   Randy</p> Bill,
  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify a very common misperception. Though it seems counterintuitive at first, information actually increases with disorder. You stated “Disorder is in some sense inversely related to what we might mean as “information.”  If this is so…” Actually, they are directly related and information increases as disorder increases.
  Consider a simple example of a 1-D row of 10 atoms in equilibrium. There is perfect order–and virtually no information. Remove one atom and put it in between two others. Now you have one vacancy and one interstitial. The disorder (entropy) has increased and so has the information. That applies both to the information required to describe the system and to the information the system can convey.
  But information capacity may not be useful, as Meyer points out. That’s why he talks about specificity. I used the terms “function” and “meaning” to talk about different ways in which we consider usefulness of information.
  I refer you to other comments I’ve made in this thread that are along the same lines. The key point is that there is no principle that says information cannot increase without an intelligent source. Physical complexity (i.e. entropy) can indeed increase and usefulness can be selected by what works. 
  By any measure of information, the antibody example shows a clear increase in information. The initial state is one of a large population of identical cells. The next state is one of a large population of cells which are all different. That is an unequivocal increase in the amount of information by any measure.
  Randy

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by David Wallace http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-156 David Wallace Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:07:19 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-156 Larry "As I have also argued earlier, computer programmers are rarely present when the software they have designed is generating output, random or otherwise, yet one does not attribute the output to non-intelligent sources because the causal agent in not “directly” mediating the current execution of the software." Where does the information produced by a program come from?  Not the programmer as the information produced may be something that the programmer knew nothing about.  Not the data, at least not directly.  The data could well be itself computer produced.   As far as I can see Shannon information is not very much help in terms of what we are trying to talk about as Shannon information is about how many bytes per second can be pumped down a data channel with a given bandwidth and noise level and related problems.  So called Algorithmic Information seems mostly about how random/complex the data is and what is the smallest program than can generate the data or the size of the data at maximum compression.  None of our current definitions of information seem to get at what humans mean as the essence of information.  See: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44a.htm Larry

“As I have also argued earlier, computer programmers are rarely present when the software they have designed is generating output, random or otherwise, yet one does not attribute the output to non-intelligent sources because the causal agent in not “directly” mediating the current execution of the software.”

Where does the information produced by a program come from?  Not the programmer as the information produced may be something that the programmer knew nothing about.  Not the data, at least not directly.  The data could well be itself computer produced.  

As far as I can see Shannon information is not very much help in terms of what we are trying to talk about as Shannon information is about how many bytes per second can be pumped down a data channel with a given bandwidth and noise level and related problems.  So called Algorithmic Information seems mostly about how random/complex the data is and what is the smallest program than can generate the data or the size of the data at maximum compression.  None of our current definitions of information seem to get at what humans mean as the essence of information.  See:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44a.htm

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by William Powers http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-155 William Powers Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:17:49 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-155 Randy:   I’ve been too busy to either follow or reply to the active conversation here.   But I would like to make a few comments before you all rush ahead of me again. First, regarding information, I think that the best way to get at what is very loosely being thrown around as “information” is to consider closed systems.  Shannon information is wholly inadequate to get at the concept and ought to be put out of our heads as soon as possible. Thinking only as a physicist, we say that the entropy of a closed “natural” system will increase over time.  That is, that “disorder” will increase.  Disorder is in some sense inversely related to what we might mean as “information.”  If this is so, then in “natural” systems information decays over time in a closed system.  We see evidence of this is in all our world, cars rust and buildings collapse, etc.  We say that the increasing entropy in a natural, closed system is a movement to more probable states.  Whether this is an empirical statement or a definition, I leave for you to ponder.  The customary Shannon relationship for information reflects the inverse relationship between so-called information and increasing probability.   More broadly, we appreciate that a necessary proposition (e.g., bachelors are unmarried men, or 2 + 2 = 4) tell us nothing about our world because they are thought to be true in all possible worlds, and hence have low (or zero) information content. Were we to consider any closed system, we would expect that if it were a natural system, the information content will decrease with time, that is, it will become more disordered.  Information is a measure of order.  So that if a closed system’s degree of order should increase over time, that is move to a less probable state, we have prima facie reasons for suspecting it is not a natural system.  This suggestion says nothing of non-closed systems.  It does not deny that entropy or information could not increase locally.  We are only speaking of closed systems.  Any system can, for a while, be isolated (at least in principle) including the human immune system. I agree with Randy that “specified complexity” is going to be a difficult measure of information.  What I would like to suggest is one that I’m certain has at least been suggested else where (even if I don’t know where).  The notion is that what we are really after in information is not so much probability (a vague notion in any case since it requires a model and context within which to make the computation), but something like “connectedness.”  What makes a sytem appear designed is its inter-relatedness, the parts are somehow integrated into a whole so that we can speak of parts serving functions. So what I suggest is that we try to think of information in terms of numbers of connections or relationships.  An entitity with a high connectiveness is likely also to be improbable, but surely not all improbable events are highly connected.   A sequence of 10,000 heads may be an exceedingly unlikely class of events, but it appears to exhibit no connectively between parts. This is all not clear, as a moments thought, will verify.  What do we mean by connectivity?  Is there a unique count of connectivity?  Is there a unique enumeration of “parts”?  All of these are problematic.  Nonetheless, when we start thinking in terms of functionality, we naturally start thinking in terms of parts.  Once we have parts we can begin to think of the connections between parts.   Indeed, functionality can serve as a means of classifying connections.  We can begin to distinguish connections that are necessary constituents of a given function and those that are not.  This measure can serve as a metric for “functional complexity.” The point of all of this is to find a measure of something that we associate with what we are calling “intelligence” or “design.”  What has been suggested is the “informational” content or the degree of complex specified information.  Whatever it is, my suggestion is to examine closed systems.  In natural closed systems, this total measure (whatever it is), will not increase, and will likely decrease.  In so-called intelligent closed systems, it will increase.  Note, that according to this model “intelligent” systems are, by definition, un-natural systems.  Also note that we need not measure total “informational” content of a system (a likely impossible metric), but only changes in “informational” content.  Also note that, as I see it, Randy’s assertion that isolated anti-body creation biological systems increase informational content is, at least unproven, and likely false. Note also that a materialist will, of course, hold that all systems are natural systems, including humans.  Hence, the “informational” content of isolated human systems cannot increase over time.  There is, then, nothing like what we call “intelligence,” and perhaps nothing like we are calling “information.” bill powers <!-- comments END --> <!-- #comment-list END --> <!-- start trackback --> Randy:
 
I’ve been too busy to either follow or reply to the active conversation here.   But I would like to make a few comments before you all rush ahead of me again.
First, regarding information, I think that the best way to get at what is very loosely being thrown around as “information” is to consider closed systems.  Shannon information is wholly inadequate to get at the concept and ought to be put out of our heads as soon as possible.
Thinking only as a physicist, we say that the entropy of a closed “natural” system will increase over time.  That is, that “disorder” will increase.  Disorder is in some sense inversely related to what we might mean as “information.”  If this is so, then in “natural” systems information decays over time in a closed system.  We see evidence of this is in all our world, cars rust and buildings collapse, etc.  We say that the increasing entropy in a natural, closed system is a movement to more probable states.  Whether this is an empirical statement or a definition, I leave for you to ponder.  The customary Shannon relationship for information reflects the inverse relationship between so-called information and increasing probability.   More broadly, we appreciate that a necessary proposition (e.g., bachelors are unmarried men, or 2 + 2 = 4) tell us nothing about our world because they are thought to be true in all possible worlds, and hence have low (or zero) information content.
Were we to consider any closed system, we would expect that if it were a natural system, the information content will decrease with time, that is, it will become more disordered.  Information is a measure of order.  So that if a closed system’s degree of order should increase over time, that is move to a less probable state, we have prima facie reasons for suspecting it is not a natural system.  This suggestion says nothing of non-closed systems.  It does not deny that entropy or information could not increase locally.  We are only speaking of closed systems.  Any system can, for a while, be isolated (at least in principle) including the human immune system.
I agree with Randy that “specified complexity” is going to be a difficult measure of information.  What I would like to suggest is one that I’m certain has at least been suggested else where (even if I don’t know where).  The notion is that what we are really after in information is not so much probability (a vague notion in any case since it requires a model and context within which to make the computation), but something like “connectedness.”  What makes a sytem appear designed is its inter-relatedness, the parts are somehow integrated into a whole so that we can speak of parts serving functions.
So what I suggest is that we try to think of information in terms of numbers of connections or relationships.  An entitity with a high connectiveness is likely also to be improbable, but surely not all improbable events are highly connected.   A sequence of 10,000 heads may be an exceedingly unlikely class of events, but it appears to exhibit no connectively between parts.
This is all not clear, as a moments thought, will verify.  What do we mean by connectivity?  Is there a unique count of connectivity?  Is there a unique enumeration of “parts”?  All of these are problematic.  Nonetheless, when we start thinking in terms of functionality, we naturally start thinking in terms of parts.  Once we have parts we can begin to think of the connections between parts.   Indeed, functionality can serve as a means of classifying connections.  We can begin to distinguish connections that are necessary constituents of a given function and those that are not.  This measure can serve as a metric for “functional complexity.”
The point of all of this is to find a measure of something that we associate with what we are calling “intelligence” or “design.”  What has been suggested is the “informational” content or the degree of complex specified information.  Whatever it is, my suggestion is to examine closed systems.  In natural closed systems, this total measure (whatever it is), will not increase, and will likely decrease.  In so-called intelligent closed systems, it will increase.  Note, that according to this model “intelligent” systems are, by definition, un-natural systems.  Also note that we need not measure total “informational” content of a system (a likely impossible metric), but only changes in “informational” content.  Also note that, as I see it, Randy’s assertion that isolated anti-body creation biological systems increase informational content is, at least unproven, and likely false.
Note also that a materialist will, of course, hold that all systems are natural systems, including humans.  Hence, the “informational” content of isolated human systems cannot increase over time.  There is, then, nothing like what we call “intelligence,” and perhaps nothing like we are calling “information.”
bill powers

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by Jon Tandy http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-153 Jon Tandy Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:32:28 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-153 Rich, You have some good points here that could be elaborated on further (for instance, what logical fallacies?).  In particular is the statement that "this does not deny intelligent design itself".  Even if Randy's example provides an adequate counter-example to one of Meyer's key assumptions, it is a long, LONG way from saying, "therefore DNA cannot be shown to have originated by intelligent design".  I don't think Randy has made that assertion, although I think others may have assumed it. However, one of the problems with what you have written is in finding a "non-intelligently designed process" for comparison with an intelligently designed process.  Here I am specifically excluding the origin of the DNA, which was necessary for the immune system to function in the first place, and I'm focused exclusively on Randy's example of the *process* of creating a specified population of antibody cells from a population of unspecified pre-B cells. It might seem that Randy's example is a clear case of a process which does not have an intelligent agent present; and therefore, it's an example of how a physical/chemical process can create complexity in the absence of intelligence.  However, even in the limited context of the production of B cells, how do you *prove* that this process functions in the absence of intelligent agency?  It might be that the universe itself is animistic, and therefore all of nature possesses intelligence that acts in all its natural processes.  It might be that God's Providence is ever present in the created order, and that His continuous sustenance is necessary for the antibody process to function.  It might even be that an unspecified but intelligent alien has the power to peer into the cells of our bodies and somehow manipulates our immune systems constantly in order to help us fight antigens. In other words, if you wanted to use this example as a "non-intelligently designed process" for purposes of comparison with "intelligently designed processes", how do you prove scientifically that no intelligence is present in the process, EVEN EXCLUDING the presumed claim of ID that intelligence must have been present in the origination of DNA in order for the process to function in the first place?  I don't think it's possible to identify a non-intelligently designed process, because it comes down to a philosophical/theological assumption about nature.  In this case, it may be a good inference, but it can never be proven scientifically. The comparison you ask about is similar to one I have invited others to comment on, but have received no response.  I would still invite anyone to comment, because someone smarter than me may be able to give me a different viewpoint.  The point was regarding <a href="../../../../01/20/information-and-intelligent-sources/comment-page-1/#comment-55" rel="nofollow">a comparison of two symphonies</a>. Briefly repeated, it was this: You have the task of comparing two streams of sound, to determine whether they have their source in an intelligent agent or not.  The two streams of sound are a Beethoven symphony, and what I have called a "forest symphony" (sounds of wind, water, birds, wolves, etc.)  You don't have any knowledge of the origin of the music or the particular instruments, the purpose of the music, or whether the music was produced by the intentionality of an intelligent composer or conductor; only the physical evidence of the stream of sound itself.  Both streams of sound include a complex interplay of overlapping musical frequencies, changing dynamics and rhythm, repetitive thematic elements, and contrapuntal melodies. The argument can been made (knowing what we know about a Beethoven symphony), that it obviously contains complex, specified information which therefore implies the existence of an intelligent designer.  But in the absence of such privileged knowledge about the history of music, stringed instruments and human orchestras, how does one distinguish between the CSI in one symphony vs. the CSI in the other?  (Or is the analogy flawed on the basis of ID's definition of CSI, and if so how?)  If the presence of CSI is sufficient to reliably infer intelligent agency in one symphony, why isn't it in the other? But even this example suffers in the same sense as the one I mentioned above.  How does one prove that the "forest symphony" is undirected by intelligent agency, in order to use it as a counter-example?  How can I prove scientitically or logically that there exists no invisible forest conductor who could be directing every bird to sing, every wolf to howl in their time, and every rustle of leaves?  By the same token, how could one prove scientifically that the "conductor" must exist, if he cannot be observed or studied? Rich,

You have some good points here that could be elaborated on further (for instance, what logical fallacies?).  In particular is the statement that “this does not deny intelligent design itself”.  Even if Randy’s example provides an adequate counter-example to one of Meyer’s key assumptions, it is a long, LONG way from saying, “therefore DNA cannot be shown to have originated by intelligent design”.  I don’t think Randy has made that assertion, although I think others may have assumed it.

However, one of the problems with what you have written is in finding a “non-intelligently designed process” for comparison with an intelligently designed process.  Here I am specifically excluding the origin of the DNA, which was necessary for the immune system to function in the first place, and I’m focused exclusively on Randy’s example of the *process* of creating a specified population of antibody cells from a population of unspecified pre-B cells.

It might seem that Randy’s example is a clear case of a process which does not have an intelligent agent present; and therefore, it’s an example of how a physical/chemical process can create complexity in the absence of intelligence.  However, even in the limited context of the production of B cells, how do you *prove* that this process functions in the absence of intelligent agency?  It might be that the universe itself is animistic, and therefore all of nature possesses intelligence that acts in all its natural processes.  It might be that God’s Providence is ever present in the created order, and that His continuous sustenance is necessary for the antibody process to function.  It might even be that an unspecified but intelligent alien has the power to peer into the cells of our bodies and somehow manipulates our immune systems constantly in order to help us fight antigens.

In other words, if you wanted to use this example as a “non-intelligently designed process” for purposes of comparison with “intelligently designed processes”, how do you prove scientifically that no intelligence is present in the process, EVEN EXCLUDING the presumed claim of ID that intelligence must have been present in the origination of DNA in order for the process to function in the first place?  I don’t think it’s possible to identify a non-intelligently designed process, because it comes down to a philosophical/theological assumption about nature.  In this case, it may be a good inference, but it can never be proven scientifically.

The comparison you ask about is similar to one I have invited others to comment on, but have received no response.  I would still invite anyone to comment, because someone smarter than me may be able to give me a different viewpoint.  The point was regarding a comparison of two symphonies.

Briefly repeated, it was this: You have the task of comparing two streams of sound, to determine whether they have their source in an intelligent agent or not.  The two streams of sound are a Beethoven symphony, and what I have called a “forest symphony” (sounds of wind, water, birds, wolves, etc.)  You don’t have any knowledge of the origin of the music or the particular instruments, the purpose of the music, or whether the music was produced by the intentionality of an intelligent composer or conductor; only the physical evidence of the stream of sound itself.  Both streams of sound include a complex interplay of overlapping musical frequencies, changing dynamics and rhythm, repetitive thematic elements, and contrapuntal melodies.

The argument can been made (knowing what we know about a Beethoven symphony), that it obviously contains complex, specified information which therefore implies the existence of an intelligent designer.  But in the absence of such privileged knowledge about the history of music, stringed instruments and human orchestras, how does one distinguish between the CSI in one symphony vs. the CSI in the other?  (Or is the analogy flawed on the basis of ID’s definition of CSI, and if so how?)  If the presence of CSI is sufficient to reliably infer intelligent agency in one symphony, why isn’t it in the other?

But even this example suffers in the same sense as the one I mentioned above.  How does one prove that the “forest symphony” is undirected by intelligent agency, in order to use it as a counter-example?  How can I prove scientitically or logically that there exists no invisible forest conductor who could be directing every bird to sing, every wolf to howl in their time, and every rustle of leaves?  By the same token, how could one prove scientifically that the “conductor” must exist, if he cannot be observed or studied?

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by Richard Blinne http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-152 Richard Blinne Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:53:10 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-152 " I think I understand WHAT you assert, but I can’t see that it makes sense. " Actually you don't understand because of the many logical fallacies buried in your response. I'll take a look at just one example. First of all, Meyer claims that CSI implies (in a modus ponens sense) intelligent design. A counter-example was presented. This does not deny intelligent design itself, rather, it invalidates the specific inference that CSI implies intelligent design. This specific example shows the way ID really should proceed. Namely, take known intelligently designed and non-intelligently designed processes and compare and contrast them -- in this case, CSI was tried and found wanting. Then, you can see if there exists processes which are not attributable to humans but are nonetheless intelligently designed. ID hasn't done this. It has used a post hoc approach instead. This is why it is so difficult even to determine CSI at all for any process let alone prove design from it. ” I think I understand WHAT you assert, but I can’t see that it makes sense. ”
Actually you don’t understand because of the many logical fallacies buried in your response. I’ll take a look at just one example. First of all, Meyer claims that CSI implies (in a modus ponens sense) intelligent design. A counter-example was presented. This does not deny intelligent design itself, rather, it invalidates the specific inference that CSI implies intelligent design.
This specific example shows the way ID really should proceed. Namely, take known intelligently designed and non-intelligently designed processes and compare and contrast them — in this case, CSI was tried and found wanting. Then, you can see if there exists processes which are not attributable to humans but are nonetheless intelligently designed. ID hasn’t done this. It has used a post hoc approach instead. This is why it is so difficult even to determine CSI at all for any process let alone prove design from it.

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by Larry Parsons http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-151 Larry Parsons Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:53:41 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-151 Randy, I'm sorry - I didn't mean to veer from the point - I truly thought I was answering issues in Jon's post. I believe that the major differences are actually not in the details, but precisely in the big picture - the underlying presuppositions.  I will refrain from discussing those until you deem that the time is appropriate. Honestly, I would have to admit that I've not followed the argument that Craig has made and that you have reiterated - I think I understand WHAT you assert, but I can't see that it makes sense.  Let me clearly lay out why I don't think your assertions work: Craig describes aspects of the production of specific B-cells and seems to indicate that (call this Assertion 1): because there is a random-generating process as part of the overall enterprise, that this fact somehow demonstrates that no intelligence was involved in the process.  This conclusion then seems to serve as an inductive base for the notion that (call this Inference 1): all systems that evidence specified complexity could therefore be derived by a non-intelligent causal agent/force. As I've argued earlier, (call this Objection 1): The organism's DNA codes for all of the components of the Immune system, including the random generator sub-routine - and it is the source of this DNA that it is the focus of Meyer's book in which he claims that intelligence is the best explanation for the existence of the information encoded in DNA which is necessary to construct the components of the Immune system; and (call this Objection 2): It doesn't logically follow that just because a system lacks a "direct" intelligent agent (I take this to be an agent physically present to roll the dice for the g.o.d. of the immune system) that one may not infer intelligence.  As I have also argued earlier, computer programmers are rarely present when the software they have designed is generating output, random or otherwise, yet one does not attribute the output to non-intelligent sources because the causal agent in not "directly" mediating the current execution of the software. So, given my objections, how is Craig justified in ruling out intelligent agency for the immune system?  Indeed, it seems prima facie to me that the immune system bears the hallmark of intelligent agency in spades.  In order for Craig to make his point he would have to point to a non-biological system (one without preprogrammed information) that used random events to produce specified complexity, or information. Do my objections make sense? Larry Randy,
I’m sorry – I didn’t mean to veer from the point – I truly thought I was answering issues in Jon’s post.
I believe that the major differences are actually not in the details, but precisely in the big picture – the underlying presuppositions.  I will refrain from discussing those until you deem that the time is appropriate.
Honestly, I would have to admit that I’ve not followed the argument that Craig has made and that you have reiterated – I think I understand WHAT you assert, but I can’t see that it makes sense.  Let me clearly lay out why I don’t think your assertions work:
Craig describes aspects of the production of specific B-cells and seems to indicate that (call this Assertion 1): because there is a random-generating process as part of the overall enterprise, that this fact somehow demonstrates that no intelligence was involved in the process.  This conclusion then seems to serve as an inductive base for the notion that (call this Inference 1): all systems that evidence specified complexity could therefore be derived by a non-intelligent causal agent/force.
As I’ve argued earlier, (call this Objection 1): The organism’s DNA codes for all of the components of the Immune system, including the random generator sub-routine – and it is the source of this DNA that it is the focus of Meyer’s book in which he claims that intelligence is the best explanation for the existence of the information encoded in DNA which is necessary to construct the components of the Immune system; and (call this Objection 2): It doesn’t logically follow that just because a system lacks a “direct” intelligent agent (I take this to be an agent physically present to roll the dice for the g.o.d. of the immune system) that one may not infer intelligence.  As I have also argued earlier, computer programmers are rarely present when the software they have designed is generating output, random or otherwise, yet one does not attribute the output to non-intelligent sources because the causal agent in not “directly” mediating the current execution of the software.
So, given my objections, how is Craig justified in ruling out intelligent agency for the immune system?  Indeed, it seems prima facie to me that the immune system bears the hallmark of intelligent agency in spades.  In order for Craig to make his point he would have to point to a non-biological system (one without preprogrammed information) that used random events to produce specified complexity, or information.
Do my objections make sense?
Larry

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by David Wallace http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-150 David Wallace Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:24:06 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-150 "Larry, I think your comment indicates clearly that I have failed most miserably in communicating my arguments in my posts. I will try to do better in the future. Each of your comments deserves its own response since I believe they reflect a serious mis-communication." Ramdy I caught up yesterday in my reading of all the comments.  My understanding of your argument is quite clear at least I think so.  The immune system in responding to infection shows an example of development of information, complex specified information that does not directly involve any intelligence.  Therefore Meyer is wrong that CSI is always the produce of intelligence.  Therefore Meyer is wrong that the information in the first cell's DNA must have been a product of intelligence.    I'm sure there is more depth to the story than what I am expressing but that seems to be the nutshell to me.  I think you are correct and that you have defeated Meyer's argument.  As I have said before, however, I think it probable that the first cell resulted from a direct action of God that ensured the right components came together in the proper manner but that belief is a long way from scientific proof. “Larry,
I think your comment indicates clearly that I have failed most miserably in communicating my arguments in my posts. I will try to do better in the future. Each of your comments deserves its own response since I believe they reflect a serious mis-communication.”

Ramdy

I caught up yesterday in my reading of all the comments.  My understanding of your argument is quite clear at least I think so.  The immune system in responding to infection shows an example of development of information, complex specified information that does not directly involve any intelligence.  Therefore Meyer is wrong that CSI is always the produce of intelligence.  Therefore Meyer is wrong that the information in the first cell’s DNA must have been a product of intelligence.   

I’m sure there is more depth to the story than what I am expressing but that seems to be the nutshell to me.  I think you are correct and that you have defeated Meyer’s argument.  As I have said before, however, I think it probable that the first cell resulted from a direct action of God that ensured the right components came together in the proper manner but that belief is a long way from scientific proof.

]]> Comment on Complex Specified Information Without an Intelligent Source by Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Book/2010/02/16/complex-specified-information-without-an-intelligent-source/comment-page-1/#comment-149 Randy Isaac Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:56:37 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Book/?p=75#comment-149 <p>Larry,   I think your comment indicates clearly that I have failed most miserably in communicating my arguments in my posts. I will try to do better in the future. Each of your comments deserves its own response since I believe they reflect a serious miscommunication.  However, I am disturbed that this thread of comments has digressed too far. Previously Jon and Chuck tried to bring it back on track, but you have  jumped to the big issues without working through the logic carefully.  May I respectfully request that you focus on the specific issue of this post? That is, the example of antibodies, as articulated in Craig's article, shows how complex specified information can be generated through a process of reproduction with variation and natural selection and no direct involvement of an intelligent designer (while still acknowledging the higher level of involvement of God as creator and sustainer). Let's stick to that specific argument for now. I'm not even asking that you agree, but that you confirm that you understand the argument.   Randy</p> Larry,
  I think your comment indicates clearly that I have failed most miserably in communicating my arguments in my posts. I will try to do better in the future. Each of your comments deserves its own response since I believe they reflect a serious miscommunication.
 However, I am disturbed that this thread of comments has digressed too far. Previously Jon and Chuck tried to bring it back on track, but you have  jumped to the big issues without working through the logic carefully.
 May I respectfully request that you focus on the specific issue of this post? That is, the example of antibodies, as articulated in Craig’s article, shows how complex specified information can be generated through a process of reproduction with variation and natural selection and no direct involvement of an intelligent designer (while still acknowledging the higher level of involvement of God as creator and sustainer). Let’s stick to that specific argument for now. I’m not even asking that you agree, but that you confirm that you understand the argument.
  Randy

]]>