Specified complexity

[TheLurch]

Indeed, I think all that's been said so far is that DNA is both complex and specified, but no numbers have been produced to say how likely it is that a piece of DNA is designed.

Did you ever stop to consider that's because the people you place so much faith in have no idea how to do so?

[shunyadragon]

And I need you to tell me why his definition is circular--not simply to state that it is.

Blessings,
Lee

Read the full article.

[lee_merrill]

Did you ever stop to consider that's because the people you place so much faith in have no idea how to do so?

I think it's because design is hard to quantify, it's more a matter of judgment than of calculation.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Read the full article.

Well, I read the article, and nowhere does he state why Dembski's definition is circular.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Actually, the judge in that case misrepresented Behe's testimony:


Yet the judge concluded that Behe said they weren't good enough.

Blessings,
Lee

. . . because he did not provide a coherent scientific argument based falsifiable hypothesis to support any aspect of Intelligent Design. This was the whole basis for the trial was the claim that ID had a scientific basis, and without presenting falsifiable hypothesis that could tested by scientific methods it was determined that ID did not have a scientific basis. It was also established that based on the references the claim of ID had a religious basis.

[shunyadragon]

But if man is in the image of God, then we could look for design analogous to human design.

Blessings,
Lee

That is what they are looking for in SETI. Intelligent design is looking for design in nature that is a source outside nature, ie God, as cited above in the Dover trial.

[lee_merrill]

That is what they are looking for in SETI. Intelligent design is looking for design in nature that is a source outside nature, ie God, as cited above in the Dover trial.

Well, you will find some who link intelligent design with God, but their stated aim is to detect the work of a designer, along the lines of what man can do, not necessarily even outside nature.

And I have yet to hear how Dembski's definition of specified complexity is circular...

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

I think it's because design is hard to quantify, it's more a matter of judgment than of calculation.

If it all comes down to subjective judgement, how can it ever be scientific?

[shunyadragon]

Well, you will find some who link intelligent design with God, but their stated aim is to detect the work of a designer, along the lines of what man can do, not necessarily even outside nature.

And I have yet to hear how Dembski's definition of specified complexity is circular...

Blessings,
Lee

I believe I have documented that the Intelligent Design argument by the primary advocate the Discovery Institute is intimately linked to the apologist arguments for the existence of God in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial. This documented as an attempt to demonstrate that. The arguments by the likes of Behe and Dempski are well understood by science.

The argument you propose is that God Creates like some anthropomorphic engineer. Nonetheless the human model you propose also operates withing the constrains of the laws of nature as evolution does, and not statistical probability. All the Intelligent Design argument is anchored on is the assertion that our natural existence (universe) and life cannot arise and evolve because of the low probability that it can take place by laws of nature and the nature of our physical existence.

All this, and the problems presented in the thread, http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-same-again, concerning p-value testing, which is the false foundation for the whole Intelligent Design argument. These two threads over lap concerning the severe problems with the whole argument.

More references will be provided concerning these problems that are not sound science nor math.

[lee_merrill]

If it all comes down to subjective judgement, how can it ever be scientific?

Maybe not hard science, like physics, but instead like soft science, such as economics, where good judgment is as necessary as good calculations.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

This documented as an attempt to demonstrate that. The arguments by the likes of Behe and Dempski are well understood by science.

Which cannot tell us why Dembki's definition is circular.

These two threads over lap concerning the severe problems with the whole argument.

So I will shift the ID discussion to the other thread.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Maybe not hard science, like physics, but instead like soft science, such as economics, where good judgment is as necessary as good calculations.

So, you're good with "My evidence? Looks designed to me! I don't need to deal with any of that messy DNA stuff."

[shunyadragon]

Which cannot tell us why Dembki's definition is circular.

Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/intelligent-design-arguments-4134446

"Specified Complexity"

The argument: Popularized in the 1990's by William Dembski, specified complexity is a fairly incoherent argument for intelligent design, but we'll do our best. Essentially begging the question, Dembski proposes that the strings of amino acids comprising DNA contain too much information to have arisen by natural causes, and therefore must have been designed. (By way of analogy, Dembski says, "A single letter of the alphabet is specified but not complex. A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.") Dembski invents a concept, the "universal probability bound," for any phenomenon that has less than one in a googol chance of occurring naturally and therefore must be complex, specified, and designed.

Why it's flawed: Like the similarly sciency-sounding "irreducible complexity" (see slide #3), specified complexity is a theory supported by virtually no evidence. Basically, Dembski is asking us to accept his definition of biological complexity, but that definition is formulated in a circular fashion, so that he's assuming his own conclusions. Also, scientists and mathematicians have pointed out that Dembski uses the words "complexity," "improbability" and "information" in very loose ways, and that his analyses of biological complexity are far from rigorous. You can gauge the truth of this accusation yourself by Dembski's widely disseminated rebuttal, that he is "not in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity."

© Copyright Original Source

So I will shift the ID discussion to the other thread.

Blessings,
Lee

Specified Complexity is simply a subset of the Intelligent Design argument.

[lee_merrill]

So, you're good with "My evidence? Looks designed to me! I don't need to deal with any of that messy DNA stuff."

Well, good judgment, not just a casual look, keeping in mind what natural processes can do. And we're still a long way from translating DNA into behavior! So that's not even possible right now.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/intelligent-design-arguments-4134446

Basically, Dembski is asking us to accept his definition of biological complexity, but that definition is formulated in a circular fashion, so that he's assuming his own conclusions.

© Copyright Original Source

But this simply states that Dembski's definition is circular, without telling us why.

Blessings,
Lee