ID Exposed: Bill O'Reilly: Right for once, admits that ID is religious

Well they're just fighting for free speech, you know. Taxpayer-subsidized religious free speech. It's the least we could do for a concept which has never been able to compete in the marketplace of ideas. How can a concept like ID be free when it's completely unable to defend itself against empirically-based concepts?

I mean be fair, do you want it to die scientifically just because it has no evidence in favor of it? The First Amendment guarantees interference of religion in government, and thus subsidies for religious ideas in the scientific sphere, doesn't it?

I think they're going back to an older notion of "freedom": If you are in control, then you are free (the aristocrats were proud to be free, as their serfs were in bondage), and who cares about the loss of freedom to others that entails?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

ID means that a deity created life?

That means that ID has no complaint with evolutionary biology, then.

After all, evolutionary biology is just about the relationships between different forms that life takes.

Evolutionary biology is in the same situation as linguistics is. Linguistics may demonstrate that French and Spanish have a common ancestor in Latin, but have practically no idea about the first human language.

What would it be like, though, if some sort of language-ID advocate would insist on teaching in K-12 languages classes that "a deity created language"? Or, maybe they would insist merely that the language classes "teach the controversy"?

But, that is a digression. We should be happy that ID has admitted that there is no problem with evolutionary biology.

Ben Stein's initials sum it up quite nicely...dontcha think?

(sigh)

What would it be like, though, if some sort of language-ID advocate would insist on teaching in K-12 languages classes that “a deity created language”?

if some sort of language-ID advocate would insist on teaching in K-12 languages classes that “a deity created language”?

— TomS

If the ID hypothesis is true, it could indeed plausibly and rationally FOLLOW from the hypothesis that "a deity created life."

However, the religious claim "a deity created life" is NOT required, NOT pre-assumed, and NOT stated at any point of the 3-point ID hypothesis as given in Dr. William Dembski's book Intelligent Design (1999 IVP).

Hence, ID is not religious. Clear as glass, and most rational.

You guys want it to be "religious", of course, because you have a religion of your own (it's called evolution), you've got a lot of emotional devotion invested in it, and you don't want to see it get undermined in the public mind by having to deal with a scientific competitor like ID.

But that don't change the facts. Philosophical support for theistic claims can FOLLOW from ID (just like atheism can philsophically FOLLOW from evolution), but ID is clearly NOT religious.

FL

P.S. People seem to be getting the message that ID is not religious and not creationism, and they ARE speaking up.
Read this letter for example, you will enjoy it immensely:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=62111&src=

:)

People seem to be getting the message that ID is not religious and not creationism, and they ARE speaking up. Read this letter for example, you will enjoy it immensely

Oh, wow, some unknown guy wrote to a paper and claimed that ID is not creationism, without considering the evidence that indeed ID is creationism or presenting any evidence at all. Very convincing.

However, the religious claim “a deity created life” is NOT required, NOT pre-assumed, and NOT stated at any point of the 3-point ID hypothesis as given in Dr. William Dembski’s book Intelligent Design (1999 IVP).

— FL

FL, Young-Earth Disciple of the Deceiver-Designer, spake thusly:

If the ID hypothesis is true, it could indeed plausibly and rationally FOLLOW from the hypothesis that “a deity created life.”

That's an ASSUMPTION, not a "hypothesis." And the fact that we have to make that assumption at the start, in order for the "ID hypothesis" to "follow," only proves that ID has no grounding at all unless we make that assumption. If we can't prove a designer unless, and until, we assume a designer, then for all practical purposes, we can't prove a designer.

...because you have a religion of your own (it’s called evolution)...

Yet more blatant dishonesty from a guy whose God allegedly created a whole Universe full of systematically deceiving evidence. (Did someone say "moral relativism?")

FL, nice use of an editorial to prove what? That some guy in Naperville, IL thinks intelligent design is scientific?

Maybe "Philosophical support for theistic claims can FOLLOW from ID," because St. Thomas Aquinas was the first to advance an ID/Teleological argument for the proof of God. This has long been debunked in philosophy as bad logic (most notably by devout believer and philosopher Immanuel Kant).

Maybe your argument should be that the designer designed evolutionary mechanisms, then your "theory" will hold water.

FL lied: "ID is not religious."

Oops - hit ENTER by accident - but it looks good by itself, doesn't it? Anyway:

Here's what a few other folks have to say about that, FL - I would appreciate your comment on the following:

"We have concluded that (intelligent design) is not [science], and moreover that (intelligent design) cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." – Federal Judge John Jones, Harrisburg, PA, December 20, 2005.

“Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology” and “Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. I don’t regard intelligent design as a scientific topic.” - White House science advisor John H. Marburger III

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." - Philip Johnson, one of the originators of the intelligent-design movement, on a Christian radio talk show in 2003

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion." Philip Johnson, 1996

“Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." - William Dembski, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, from his book, "Intelligent Design," page 207

If the ID hypothesis is true, it could indeed plausibly and rationally FOLLOW from the hypothesis that “a deity created life.”

However, the religious claim “a deity created life” is NOT required, NOT pre-assumed, and NOT stated at any point of the 3-point ID hypothesis as given in Dr. William Dembski’s book Intelligent Design (1999 IVP).

“The fine-tuning of the universe, about which cosmologists make such a to-do, is both complex and specified and readily yields design. So too, Michael Behe’s irreducibly complex biochemical systems readily yield design. The complexity-specification criterion demonstrates that design pervades cosmology and biology. Moreover, it is a transcendent design, not reducible to the physical world. Indeed, no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life.” –William Dembski www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/science-friday.html#comment-48043

Hence, ID is not religious. Clear as glass, and most rational.

You guys want it to be “religious”, of course, because you have a religion of your own (it’s called evolution),

you’ve got a lot of emotional devotion invested in it,

and you don’t want to see it get undermined in the public mind by having to deal with a scientific competitor like ID.

But that don’t change the facts. Philosophical support for theistic claims can FOLLOW from ID (just like atheism can philsophically FOLLOW from evolution),

but ID is clearly NOT religious.

FL P.S. People seem to be getting the message that ID is not religious and not creationism, and they ARE speaking up.

O'REILLY: Okay, do you think thought that people who believe in creationism are being persecuted in America? STEIN: There's no doubt about it. We have lots and lots of evidence of it in the movie. And you know Einstein worked within the framework of believing there was a God. Newton worked within the framework of believing there was a God. For gosh sakes Darwin worked within the framework of believing there was a God. And yet, somehow, today you're not allowed to believe it. Why can't we have as much freedom as Darwin had?

As an ID'er I do believe that there is an intelligent designing force (ID) that produced both the universe and the biological substructures in question. I am not however religiously devoted to this "God-force" (for it it just another force of nature). I am not religiously devoted to the electromagenetic forces or the nuclear strong or nuclear weak forces either. Nor am I religiously devoted to Jesus, budhha, Mohammed, Kirshna, Confucious or any other religious icons. Nor am I religiously devoted to the Bible the Quran or any other "holy book" of any kind. I am now and have always been an anti-dogmatist. As far as I can see, the fact that I am an ID theorist does not mean that I am "religious" (as that term is understood in our culture). "Religion" seems to involve some kind of passionate interest in ancient history that I completely lack.

If my interest in the God-force or the nuclear strong force makes me "religious" then by such definitions I am indeed "religious," but I would question the legitimacy of such definitions.

William: you've told us what you DON'T believe; but you haven't told us what you DO believe, or what, in all your beliefs, makes you an "ID theorist." Are you referring to the mere fact that you believe in a Creator(s)? That alone does hot make you an "IDer" as that word is commonly used. In the public discourse (and in courts), an "IDer" (a.k.a. "creationist") is someone who not only believes in a Creator/Designer, but also believes (or claims to believe) that his belief can and should be treated as "science," while not doing any actual scientific work to prove his claims.

I, too, believe in at least one Creator, but I am not an "IDer" or "creationist," for the simple reason that I do not claim that any part of my god-belief is scientifically proven or provable, nor do I resort to my god-belief to explain any material phenomenon.

PS: William, you do have one thing in common with other "ID theorists:" you don't attempt to describe any actual "theory" of ID. In the interests of presuming innocence, however, I won't use that snippet of evidence alone to damn you as an "IDjit."

William wrote:

"...have always been an anti-dogmatist. As far as I can see, the fact that I am an ID theorist does not mean that I am “religious”..."

Well then, if your are an "ID theorist" then you must have a theory of ID, right? So you have a hypothesis that has been tested many times and has never been falsified, right? So you have evidence for this "theory" and it explains all of the observations better than any alternative, right? I mean, after all, we know you are not "dogmatic" because you said so, right? So your views are based on evidence, right? So let's have it, what is the scientific "theory" of ID? What evidence suppoerts it? Where is this evidence published? Why do you think that it has better expalanatory power than MET? What is this mysterious force if it is not God? What is the evidence for this force (hint: saying that something couldn't be produced by natural forces is not evidence for any specific force)?

Anyway, just because ID doesn't really have to be religious doesn't mean that it isn't. Just because not every single person who claims to be an ID supporter is not religious doesn't mean that most are not religious. Just because some people may not have religious motivations for their belief in ID doesn't mean that most do not. The history of the ID movement is well documented. If you don't want to be associated with that history, then don't use the same terms they do. Their arguments are tainted, their true motivation is obvious and they have failed miserably in the legal department. At least pick two other letters to set your views apart. You are flirting with a devil who pretends to be Jesus. The Bible warns about stuff like that, even if you don't believe in the Bible.

FL: ... ID is not religious. ...

Dr. William Dembski: Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

" So pick your option: 1. ID is tautologically false 2. ID is scientifically infertile 3. ID is religious.
None of the three logical choices are very appealing really."

- nor are they mutually exclusive - I chose 4. all of the above

These papers have actually been available for more than a month now. What is missing is the rapid responses from ID critics that usually follow from William Dembski's publications.

— William Brookfield

I like the way that they discuss the "two" opinions as if there was only one bogus intelligent design alternative. In science class we aren't in the business of teaching nonsense as science, and definitely not in the business of teaching religion as science especially the "one" other religious opinion that these guys want to teach. How pathetic can anyone get? They provide more evidence for why we need a separation between church and state in that short talk than someone could spend an entire class discussing.

I noticed that the propagandists at the Church of Discovery Institute have expunged from their postings yesterday's breathless announcement of Ben Stein appearing with Blabbermouth Bill.

What a bunch of clowns.

Maybe your argument should be that the designer designed evolutionary mechanisms, then your “theory” will hold water.

that would be like putting a paper cup inside of a plastic glass to hold water.

just to make it clear, it's not only NOT a theory, it's completely unnecessary even conceptually.

but, if a religioso can make themselves happy being a theistic evolutionist, at least it keeps them out of the way.

Maybe your argument should be that the designer designed evolutionary mechanisms, then your “theory” will hold water.

Intelligent design doesn't depend on any biblical-type account of creation, attempt to identify the intelligent cause responsible for design, or describe the sequence of events by which the intelligence acted.

Raging Bee said, William: you've told us what you DON'T believe; but you haven't told us what you DO believe, or what, in all your beliefs, makes you an "ID theorist."

I wondered wtf "ICON-RIDS" was...

http://icon-rids.blogspot.com/

worse than UD.

no wait, that's not possible.

as bad as.

ICON-RIDS From Conservapedia Jump to: navigation, search ICON-RIDS is an acronym for the International Coalition of Non-Religious ID Scientists & Scholars. It was founded by William Brookfield with the intent of stopping the classification of Intelligent Design as a religious enterprise so that it can be classified as science.

” So pick your option: 1. ID is tautologically false 2. ID is scientifically infertile 3. ID is religious. None of the three logical choices are very appealing really.” - nor are they mutually exclusive - I chose 4. all of the above

...and that I find the scientific evidence for ID in both cases (biological and cosmological) to be compelling (at this time).

Okay, so what IS that evidence? And where are the peer-reviewed publications and other work proving ID and disproving evolution?

Wait, let's go back a few steps...what, exactly, is the testable hypothesis that constitutes what you call "ID theory?"

I guess I should have said “As an ID’er I do believe that there is an intelligent designing force (ID) that produced both the universe and the biological substructures in question – and that I find the scientific evidence for ID in both cases (biological and cosmological) to be compelling (at this time).

I guess I should have said “As an ID’er I do believe that there is an intelligent designing force (ID) that produced both the universe and the biological substructures in question – and that I find the scientific evidence for ID in both cases (biological and cosmological) to be compelling (at this time).

just so you all know, you’re debating a complete idiot.

I learned about the theory of “ontogeny recipitulating[sic] phylogeny” in my elementary school playground in 1968 – from a friend (Calvin Jackson). Throughout the 60’s and 70’s I was a Darwinist. In 1979 I began to suspect something was wrong with Darwinism.

I learned about phrenology when I was in high school.

In 1980, I started to suspect something was wrong with psychology.

...

like i said, complete idiot.

I guess I should have said “As an ID’er I do believe that there is an intelligent designing force (ID)

— William Brookfield ICON-RIDS

that produced both the universe

and the biological substructures in question – and that I find the scientific evidence for ID in both cases (biological and cosmological) to be compelling (at this time).

I am not however religiously devoted to this “God-force” (for it it just another force of nature). I am not religiously devoted to the electromagenetic forces or the nuclear strong or nuclear weak forces either.

Seems that Bill and Ben never got the Discovery Institute’s talking points.

Un'Reilly and Stein are both cunning scam artists. But their scam isn't the IDC scam but to take advantage of it. They don't hurt their cause by acknowledging this but raise interest and support. But in general, yes, there is a lot of this going around. (Re KvD.) On one hand it is a difficult balance act for the DI to publicly make denial without admitting the very point. On the other it is perhaps a failure of communication. It seems the trouble is that the rest of the IDC scam lives well on, or even needs, misinterpreted messages. But this one point actually needs understanding and some measure of moderation or even silence. Which aren't strong traits among fundamentalists. FL: See, you failed in deflecting all discussion on the real message here. That your clumsy and drooling IDC baby is a source of laughs in the media now, as it earlier was a joke when it stumbled in on sciences and courts. But as for your fallacies:

the ID hypothesis

You don't know first thing about hypotheses, do you? A hypothesis must be testable. We are all waiting for a testable 'design' hypothesis. But we know that ID stops short of testability. By,... um, design. So you have no such hypothesis. But be my guest, try to formulate one here. Don't let 20 years of IDC history stop you.

Hence, ID is not religious.

That isn't what makes a movement religious or not. It is what it does that counts. And IDC is a religious scam, as the US state was forced to rule on in Kitzmiller vs Dover by the unconstitutional actions of IDC members. Maybe you want to argue that an ID idea, when presented as a testable hypothesis sometime in the indefinite future, isn't trivially religious. But that is fundamentally wrong. See, you can't explain how life started even if we assume that you some day present an hypothesis. If you claim, say for example by way of this testable hypothesis, that we should look for natural designers you propose that life created life. So now you have to explain how that life was created. This is a potentially infinite regress, but that isn't the problem. The problem is that our universe has a finite history. Sometime in this history you have your very own IDC LUCA (if by Common we include your life by life design moments to make a simile). Now you have either to declare that you have failed to explain how life started. Which is a common and completely irrelevant question put from IDC'ers on evolution theory. But is highly relevant here, as your own hypothesis is supposed to do this. (As opposed to evolution theory that describes the behavior among hereditary populations.) Or you have to confess that the IDC "LUCA" is explained by IDC as designed by a supernatural designer.

An intelligent designing force? What on Earth could that be? My guess is, it’s NS.

Seems that Bill and Ben never got the Discovery Institute’s talking points.

the ID hypothesis

Hence, ID is not religious.

The first order of business here is Darwin's mechanism of speciation. This mechanism is a hoax. Both natural selective destruction and randomization (RM) are destruction functions. It is not logically possible for a destruction(-) functions to produce new construction (biological or otherwise). It is not logically possible for new structures (+) to arise by destructive (-) agents. Darwin's thesis regarding the "origin (construction) of new species (new structure) by means of natural selection" (selective destruction) is thus logically and causally bankrupt. The normal course of argument taken by Darwinists at this point is to claim that any such doubts about Darwinism are "religiously motivated" and therefore beneath consideration. This isn't going to work here.

Mr. Brookfield must mean “force” in the technical sense,

Um, Torbjörn, did you miss my invisible [snark] tag?

Both natural selective destruction and randomization (RM) are destruction functions.

Oh, it was supposed to be aninvisible tag!

Not to be too nitpicky, but I think the usual convention is to use [invisible] Ghost [/invisible]. :-)

Actually, I'm not sure if you are snarking because I didn't miss it, or because you don't think the reference is clear enough, or because it wasn't clear enough.

Maybe I could have come up with another simile. But it was terribly hard to think of something else after noticing the correlation to your tag/handle. Let us chalk it up to the effects of having a limited mind. :-)

OM wrote:

"The first order of business here is Darwin’s mechanism of speciation. This mechanism is a hoax. Both natural selective destruction and randomization (RM) are destruction functions. It is not logically possible for a destruction(-) functions to produce new construction (biological or otherwise). It is not logically possible for new structures (+) to arise by destructive (-) agents. Darwin’s thesis regarding the “origin (construction) of new species (new structure) by means of natural selection” (selective destruction) is thus logically and causally bankrupt."

How can something that is random be exclusively destructive? If it is random than any outcome is possible, not just destruction. It is true that random changes to highly adapted systems will usually be destructive, but not exclusively so.

There are three things to keep in mind. First some small proportion of all possible changes will be beneficial in that they will increase the ability of the organism to survive in the environment. Second, even if these types of changes are very rare they will tend to increase in frequency after they arise due to selection. Third, even if no changes are beneficial in the current environment, eventually the environment will change and then some changes will undoubtedly be beneficial, even if they were not in the previous environment.

If you combine these features with typical population sizes, mutation rates, selection coefficients and the variation produced by sexual reproduction, you will see that it is almost inevitable that adaptations will arise and increase in frequency over time. Since the process is cumulative, eventually new structures and functions will arise and be selected on. And all of this can be produced by processes that are supposedly destructive.

Think of it this way, when you play poker, do you ever draw cards after the deal? Well that is destructive in that destroys the hand you are dealt. But of course the reason you draw cards is that you increase the probability that you will have the winning hand. If you don't draw cards you will preserve your hand but you will most likely lose. If you destroy the hand you have you at least have the opportunity to draw a better hand. The cards you draw are random and what you draw may make your hand worse and no matter what hand you draw you might still lose. But destroying your hand is the only way that you have any chance of getting a better hand. That's the role of sexual reproduction and mutation. It's a gamble, but it's the only way to stay in the game if you have to compete with others who are taking the risk because you know that one of them can always get a better hand than you and then you will lose.

By the way, the statement was about speciation, not adaptation. Indeed, no constructive process is required for speciation. Reproductive isolation is the only requirement. That can come about through many mechanisms, many of which do not even involve genetic changes at all. Once reproductive isolation is in place, even so called destructive forces can increase genetic divergence over time. So the argument used is completely fallacious in any event.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: You don’t know first thing about hypotheses, do you? A hypothesis must be testable. We are all waiting for a testable ‘design’ hypothesis.

I am not however religiously devoted to this “God-force” (for it it just another force of nature).

— William Brookfield, ICON-RIDS

As an ID’er I do believe that there is an intelligent designing force (ID) that produced both the universe and the biological substructures in question.

I am not however religiously devoted to this “God-force” (for it it just another force of nature).

I am not religiously devoted to the electromagenetic forces or the nuclear strong or nuclear weak forces either.

Nor am I religiously devoted to Jesus, budhha, Mohammed, Kirshna, Confucious or any other religious icons. Nor am I religiously devoted to the Bible the Quran or any other “holy book” of any kind. I am now and have always been an anti-dogmatist.

As far as I can see, the fact that I am an ID theorist does not mean that I am “religious” (as that term is understood in our culture).

“Religion” seems to involve some kind of passionate interest in ancient history that I completely lack.

If my interest in the God-force or the nuclear strong force makes me “religious” then by such definitions I am indeed “religious,” but I would question the legitimacy of such definitions.

David Stanton: Well then, if your are an "ID theorist" then you must have a theory of ID, right?

While you can claim a difference between specified and non-specified information, it seems self evident that specification is an inevitable outcome of natural selection.

Is that the full extent of your 'theory'? Some ad hoc definitions?

William, among other things, how does (m)K-complexity and (i)K-complexity explain why the Mesonychia are very similar to early whales, or why the underground orchids of the genus Rhizanthella live underground?

With regard to theoretical bioinformatics

— William Brookfield, ICON-RIDS

I am arguing that we can legitimately posit Kolomogorov complexity as having two different forms,

as differentiated by source and function.

#1. Non-specific Non-informational (m)K-complexity and #2. Specified Informational (i)K-complexity. Random mutation, random gene duplication, random genetic drift, random lateral gene transferences and “natural selection” that destroys (randomizes) the unfit, all produce (m)K-complexity but not informational (i)K-complexity.

The production of informational K-complexity (information with all redundancy removed)

requires intelligent design.

Informational (i)K-complexity always serves as a component of a larger informational system.

William, can you explain how (m)K-complexity and (i)K-complexity explain why whales share so many similarities with hippopotami, anthracotheres and mesonychids?
How does Intelligent Design account for heteromorph ammonites like Nipponites, Didymoceras or Macroscaphites?

I also have a philosophy of science-building and civilization-building that includes treating all people with respect at all times.

says the man who earns no respect.

"I have a philosophy where astrology garners as much respect as astronomy"

sound familiar?

idiot.

PvM: While you can claim a difference between specified and non-specified information, it seems self evident that specification is an inevitable outcome of natural selection.

Excuse me for nit-picking, but I suggest that you are being too demanding on all hypotheses. Perhaps a scientific hypothesis should be testable.

William,

Thanks for the response. However, as others have pointed out, your false dichotomey is untenable. Complexity is not defined in terms of source or function. For example, a certain gene can have a certain level of complexity regardless of the processes whereby it arose and regardless of it's function. In my previous comment, I thought that I had made it clear that random mutations followed by selection can produce almost any result given enough time. How do you get from there to this new defiinition of complexity? What sequence is it that you think cannot be produced by random mutations? What function is it that you think cannot be selected on? What predictions does the so-called theory make? How are they different form those expected from MET? Are you trying to claim that complex systems cannot evolve? If so, the empirical evidence is against you and no theoretical argument can suffice.

As for your "gamblers fallacy", if you had enough money and the goal was to play until you got a royal flush, you would eventually get one. Just how many trials do you think have been tried by every life form that ever reproduced? The result is only limited by the number of losses you are willing to incur and in the case of life that number is astronomical.

As for your filtration versus origination argument, I must respectifully disagree with your reasoning once again. Obviously the moths did have the required variation to survive the change in the environment. That is often the case. The variation was produced by random mutations, where did you think it came from?. If they did not have this variation however, they could have gone extinct, so what? The vast majority of species that have ever lived have gone extinct. The question is, can the processes of random mutation and sexual reproduction allow for sufficient genetic variation so that new species can arise and change rapidly enough to continue to survive in a changing environment? When one looks at the evidence the answer is absolutely yes. Even though most species have gone extinct, there are still more species and families of organisms alive today than at any time in the history of the earth. This is true despite the rapid environmental changes produced by humans in the last two hundred years. So obviously, these processes are sufficient to produce the diversity of species we see on the planet today. Of course all species could go extinct tomorrow and that would prove absolutely nothing, except that they were not intelligently designed.

With regard to theoretical bioinformatics I am arguing that we can legitimately posit Kolomogorov [sic] complexity as having two different forms, as differentiated by source and function.

#1. Non-specific Non-informational (m)K-complexity and #2. Specified Informational (i)K-complexity. Random mutation, random gene duplication, random genetic drift, random lateral gene transferences and “natural selection” that destroys (randomizes) the unfit, all produce (m)K-complexity but not informational (i)K-complexity.

information systems

any claim that (m)K-complexity is “order” or “information” is a case of what is known as “the gamblers fallacy.”

devolutionary negative.

how on EARTH can anyone take someone seriously who uses terminology like this?

laugh and move on.

devolutionary negative. how on EARTH can anyone take someone seriously who uses terminology like this?

how on EARTH can anyone take someone seriously who uses terminology like this? laugh and move on.

With regard to theoretical bioinformatics...

...I am arguing that we can legitimately posit Kolomogorov complexity as having two different forms as differentiated by source and function.

...#1. Non-specific Non-informational (m)K-complexity and #2. Specified Informational (i)K-complexity.

Of course I have numerous ID based theories. I also have a philosophy of science-building and civilization-building that includes treating all people with respect at all times. With this in mind I did not appreciate Bill O’reilly refering to certain people disrespectfully as “pin heads.”

With regard to theoretical bioinformatics I am arguing that we can legitimately posit Kolomogorov complexity as having two different forms, as differentiated by source and function.

#1. Non-specific Non-informational (m)K-complexity and #2. Specified Informational (i)K-complexity. Random mutation, random gene duplication, random genetic drift, random lateral gene transferences and “natural selection” that destroys (randomizes) the unfit, all produce (m)K-complexity but not informational (i)K-complexity. The production of informational K-complexity (information with all redundancy removed) requires intelligent design. Informational (i)K-complexity always serves as a component of a larger informational system. The size of such information systems produce what is know as “combinatorial explosion” and prohibits the construction of any to these systems “by chance.” Moreover, any claim that (m)K-complexity is “order” or “information” is a case of what is known as “the gamblers fallacy.”

Further discussions of (m)K-complexity and (i)K-complexity can be found at my blog and at ISCID

. . . Given say, the case of the peppered moth. According to the traditional story, the industrial revolution soot-ed (darkened) the landscape and subsequently bumped and shifted the survivable niche for peppered moths.

— William Brookfield, ICON-RIDS

The result was that lighter moths were being decimated(randomized).

luckily, the species included a darker variation that could indeed survive in the new environment.

Were this not the case the species could have been destroyed(randomized).

The new environment was a blow from which the species was (in this case) able to recover.

The “blow” or “bump” could however, have been harder. The earth could have been hit with an asteroid, in which case the peppered moth species would need a variant that was not darker but perhaps instead asbestos-like and fireproof.

The buffeting that species take from a changing environment is not an evolutionary positive but is instead a dangerous devolutionary negative.

While natural selective destruction can indeed ruthlessly “specify” a survivable or optimum variant from a pre-existing probabilistic genetic “library,”

it is no position, given its function, to produce new species nor their attendant variational options (new genetic libraries).

“Filtration” is not the same as “origination.”

“Origination” requires the development of new specifications not the mere filtration of old specifications (old genetic libraries).

But a species doesn’t have a manual. There is no single specification. Each species is a collection of many individuals, all of which differ from one another.

... But it still remains true that natural selection is a narrowing down from an initially wider field of possibilities, including mostly unsuccessful ones, to a narrower field of successful ones. This is analogous to the definition of information with which we began: information is what enables the narrowing down from prior uncertainty (the initial range of possibilities) to later certainty (the "successful" choice among the prior probabilities). According to this analogy, natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed into the gene pool of the next generation. If natural selection feeds information into gene pools, what is the information about? It is about how to survive. Strictly it is about how to survive and reproduce, in the conditions that prevailed when previous generations were alive. To the extent that present day conditions are different from ancestral conditions, the ancestral genetic advice will be wrong. In extreme cases, the species may then go extinct. To the extent that conditions for the present generation are not too different from conditions for past generations, the information fed into present-day genomes from past generations is helpful information. Information from the ancestral past can be seen as a manual for surviving in the present: a family bible of ancestral "advice" on how to survive today. We need only a little poetic licence to say that the information fed into modern genomes by natural selection is actually information about ancient environments in which ancestors survived. ... To quote from Unweaving the Rainbow: "And isn't it an arresting thought? We are digital archives of the African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas; walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days. You could spend a lifetime reading in this ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it." [Bold added.]

I should also add that IIRC Schroeder, author of the ev program, has measured the crucial difference in a genome's Shannon information that selection makes when it is added to a background of variation. So Dawkins model isn't only testable, but has passed an important test.

I should also add that IIRC Schroeder, author of the ev program,...

Glen Davidson said:
Well they’re just fighting for free speech, you know. Taxpayer-subsidized religious free speech. It’s the least we could do for a concept which has never been able to compete in the marketplace of ideas. How can a concept like ID be free when it’s completely unable to defend itself against empirically-based concepts?

I mean be fair, do you want it to die scientifically just because it has no evidence in favor of it? The First Amendment guarantees interference of religion in government, and thus subsidies for religious ideas in the scientific sphere, doesn’t it?

I think they’re going back to an older notion of “freedom”: If you are in control, then you are free (the aristocrats were proud to be free, as their serfs were in bondage), and who cares about the loss of freedom to others that entails?

As if there was any real difference between science and religion. Everything is religious; it is only a question of what religion. ID is about the true religion of Jesus the Son of God; while evolutionism is the religion of the false prophets Buddha, Mohammad, O'Hair, and Darwin! Christians want a world where Christians are free, and that must be a world where sin is punished swiftly and severely. There must be no freedom for the apostles of sin, for Jesus and Satan can never share the same territory!

I thought there were many Muslims who support ID. In fact, Islamic creation is based upon the Judeo-Christian one. Raeliens are IDists too, but they believe it was done by extraterrestrials.

Richard: I thought there were many Muslims who support ID. In fact, Islamic creation is based upon the Judeo-Christian one.

Yay! I think this is the first time somebody's responded to me! I'm a newbie to this blog.

Thank you all for your comments,

Hello Torbjörn
thanks for the Dawkin's Quotes,

Clearly I have different take on "Natural Selection" than Richard Dawkins.

For example, as I see it dogs presently exist in a symbiotic relationship with humans. Numerous breeds that would not survive in the wild are presently sustained with regular nutritious meals, dog biscuits, comfortable housing, regular veterinary care etc. -- all provided by humans. If humans were to disappear from the world "Natural Selection' would once again destroy all of the suboptimal breeds, reducing dogs to a core ancestral wolf type that can survive in the wild (without humans). With the natural selective destruction of say, the "poodle" comes the destruction of all the DNA coding (the information) contained in the poodle and the destruction of its reproductive (information carrying ) capacity. In this manner natural selection acts to reduce the information carrying capacity of the dog species as a whole. If the DNA information that codes for poodles is to be carried forward at all, it must now squeeze through the only remaining "dog channel" still open, the ancestral wolf.

As I see it "information" refers to the realization of a specific event(s) within a background set of live possibilities -- not dead dogs. The destruction of information carriers (such as poodles) does not increase information as I see it but merely narrows the channel capacity. The bottom line is that the (natural selective) destruction of channel capacity is not the same thing as the production of new information -- in which channel capacity is necessarily maintained.

The "genetic library" that I talk about is the set of gradualistically accessible variations available to any given species. Perhaps many here believe that this library is infinite (we are all but variation of the original reproducing organism?)and that new information is not needed. The question for me is, how to add genuinely new information to the existing library or how to add a new species with its new attendant library of variations.

Poodle information. Sheesh.

Dude, I'm just a layman, but it doesn't take long to learn about gene duplication and evo-devo.

As the Human Ton's puppet-hand says, "Read a book!"

Yep, natural selection will by itself reduce the amount of genetic variety in a species. Genetic drift also does this.

BUT - selection and drift are not the only things operating.

Which goes back to what fnxtr just said: read something besides propaganda.

Henry

By 'learn about', I mean the basic concepts, of course. The library is continuously expanding. You may need an extra hemisphere to contain it all. "Hello, Dr. Suzuki?..."

For example, as I see it dogs presently exist in a symbiotic relationship with humans.

— William Brookfield, ICON-RIDS

Numerous breeds that would not survive in the wild

. . . If humans were to disappear from the world “Natural Selection’ would once again destroy all of the suboptimal breeds,

reducing dogs to a core ancestral wolf type that can survive in the wild (without humans).

With the natural selective destruction of say, the “poodle” comes the destruction of all the DNA coding (the information) contained in the poodle and the destruction of its reproductive (information carrying ) capacity.

In this manner natural selection acts to reduce the information carrying capacity of the dog species as a whole.

If the DNA information that codes for poodles is to be carried forward at all, it must now squeeze through the only remaining “dog channel” still open, the ancestral wolf.

As I see it “information” refers to the realization of a specific event(s) within a background set of live possibilities – not dead dogs.

The destruction of information carriers (such as poodles) does not increase information as I see it but merely narrows the channel capacity.

The bottom line is that the (natural selective) destruction of channel capacity is not the same thing as the production of new information – in which channel capacity is necessarily maintained.

The “genetic library” that I talk about is the set of gradualistically accessible variations available to any given species.

Perhaps many here believe that this library is infinite (we are all but variation of the original reproducing organism?)and that new information is not needed. The question for me is, how to add genuinely new information to the existing library or how to add a new species with its new attendant library of variations.

I think you mean Schneider, not Schroeder.

If humans were to disappear from the world “Natural Selection’ would once again destroy all of the suboptimal breeds, reducing dogs to a core ancestral wolf type that can survive in the wild (without humans).

The destruction of information carriers (such as poodles) does not increase information as I see it but merely narrows the channel capacity.

NS does not create new information, that is mainly done by mutation.

Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the reverse, for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing the prior uncertainty. But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the "prior uncertainty" and therefore, in Shannon's sense, contributes information to the gene pool.

Torbjorn, you are right. I got lulled into using the woolly definition of information. I was not using it in its technical, unambiguous sense.

Nigel, I hope it was clear that your definition could work as well. (But I agree that it is woollier at this time.) There isn't one unique measure of information or its related measures of entropy and complexity.

Specifically for information is that it is a relative measure, and contingent on measurement definition. By using another model it is quite possible that mutations can be seen as responsible for information.

Actually, I bet they are. Increased variation or the occasional new unselected trait may mean increase in algorithmic information (Kolmogorov complexity) instead, if measured as a less compressible description of the genome or phenome.

But then you don't have a channel model, in which it is easier to understand where the information comes from, what "sends" it. I think that is why Dawkins chose it.

(But I agree that it is woollier at this time.)