From: Denyse O'Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 10:36:26 EST
As before, Denyse, please have this posted on the ASA discussion list.
- done, d.
On 11/10/03 5:49 PM, "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
>>Having decided that 70 is the magic number (perhaps numerologists may
>>note the 7 - divine number) then proteins with 300 bits cant be
>>natural and therefore divine by interruption.
Two points to make here. First, 70 bits is not simply picked out of the
blue. If one plots 'information gain' vs. 'time', one will notice that
the curve approaches a horizontal asymptote somewhere in the region of
70 bits. I say 'somewhere in the region' because the amount of
information carried per site in any sequence will affect how soon the
curve goes asymptotic.
Second, Michael's objection misrepresents my hypothesis. He implies that
my argument goes something like, "wow, I can't see how nature can do
this, therefore, God must've done it!" This is neither the argument, nor
the hypothesis. My hypothesis is based upon two empirical observations:
1) In our observations of the day-to-day processes of nature, we notice
that natural processes cannot seem to produce more than a few dozen bits
of functional information. They do not even seem to have the capability.
2) In our observations of this world, we notice that intelligent agents,
such as humans, can produce vast amounts of functional information.
>From the above two empirical observations, we can put together an
hypothesis:
Hypothesis: Any structure, configuration, or sequence that requires more
than 70 bits of functional information, requires intelligent design.
Michael has not considered the role of empirical observation (2).
Without (2), then the argument would, indeed, collapse into a
God-of-the-gaps argument. With (2), however, the argument stands on
solid, empirical ground, and gives us a real, live, empirically
verifiable option.
There are good reasons for all this, that center around the fact that
configurations that contain a large amount of information, represent a
very large entropic anomaly in the physical system, under Shannon
information.
Nature is not in the business of producing huge anomalies on a regular
basis. For a minimal genome, we would need roughly 250 anomalies so
large, that even just one of them is not likely to occur in the history
of the universe. When we see something like that, we need to face
reality, rather than concoct yet another ad hoc story with an ever
increasing number of epicyclic embellishments, as the ardent Darwinist
such as Dawkins is so wont to do. Dawkins, and others like him, have
confused the art of story-telling with doing hard science. They are
guilty of the 'evolution-of-the-gaps' argument.
As for Michael's contention that the hypothesis is not falsifiable, I
must ask him to carefully go over the two experiments I proposed. Either
experiment is capable of falsifying the hypothesis if the hypothesis is
wrong. The fact that, thus far, experiments have failed to falsify the
hypothesis should not be taken as grounds for saying that the hypothesis
is not falsifiable, otherwise, every true hypothesis in science would
fall into the same category. Some hypotheses, although falsifiable, may
not be able to be falsified simply because they are a true description
of the way the world is.
I repeat my challenge; do the science proposed in my two suggested
experiments and see if my hypothesis, which is falsifiable, is actually
falsified or not.
>> Simply God retreats as a gap is filled.
>> It is a sophisticated version of God of the Gaps - which is of
course >> the staple of IDers however cleverly they express it.
I cannot speak for all ID theorists; I am sure that some may actually
use various forms of a God-of-the-gaps argument. I do know, however,
that the general assertion that Michael makes misrepresents some ID
theorists, including myself. One should not be so convinced that all ID
theorists use such-and-such argument that when a valid ID argument comes
along which the skeptic cannot refute, the skeptic assumes it is merely
a highly sophisticated form of the standard argument, so sophisticated,
mind you, that the skeptic cannot actually cannot show the link. When
that occurs, then it becomes the skeptic's own beliefs that leave the
realm of falsification.
>> Biochemistry is too young a science to make predictions or
>> assertions like this. If we do in a few years someone may/will find
>> an explanation and God is squeezed out of another gap.
There is a lot more than mere biochemistry involved in my hypothesis.
There is a steadily growing body of evidence from physics, information
theory, and mathematics, all of it consistent with the hypothesis I
present. Furthermore, the gap, when it comes to natural processes that
can produce novel 3-D structures in proteins, and encode functional
information into regulatory sequences, is not by any stretch of the
imagination becoming smaller.
One more point. Until a person has a scientific method to detect ID, one
cannot, on scientific grounds, say that ID was or was not involved. I
see a large number of scientists insisting that ID was not involved in
the origin and diversification of organic life, yet they do not have a
scientific method to test such statements. That is bad science. In a
personal email conversation I had with Richard Dawkins a couple years
ago, it became quite clear that Dawkins not only does not have a
scientific method to test for ID, he is actually opposed to science
developing one!
Furthermore, I see far too many scientists who foresee the philosophical
implications of ID and who therefore refuse to do the science. The job
of science is to develop a generally accepted method to detect ID and
then let the philosophers and theologians wrestle with the implications.
But scientists should not let the philosophical implications hinder
scientific inquiry. That is bad science. So the real people who are
smuggling philosophy and religion into their science are those who
oppose ID without any scientific method to test for ID. The hypothesis I
present offers such a scientific method. It makes predictions that are
falsifiable. It can be applied to the real world, and comes up with
results that are repeatable and entirely consistent with the general
body of empirical science.
Cheers,
Kirk
-- To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be published Spring 2004.To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397, fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or US$14.95).
Denyse O'Leary 14 Latimer Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8 Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665 oleary@sympatico.ca www.denyseoleary.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 10:33:15 EST