From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 13:09:43 EST
----- Original Message -----
From: "NSS" <kirk@newscholars.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Denyse O'Leary"
<oleary@sympatico.ca>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: Kirk Durston's response
> As before, Denyse, please have this posted on the ASA discussion list.
>
>
>
> 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.
MBR Who has done this and where is it publsihed? What does it mean?
>
> 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.
MBR Can you please describe your observations on this and where they are
written up?
>
> 2) In our observations of this world, we notice that intelligent agents,
> such as humans, can produce vast amounts of functional information.
So waht!
>
> 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).
MBR What empirical observation ?
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.
MBR Have you done those experiments? Where have you written them up?
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.
MBR From what you write I cannot work out what these experiments are.
> >
> > 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!
MBR it is difficult to devise a scientific test for ID.
>
> 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
>
MBR Honestly I dont think you have give a coherent case.>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 14:01:10 EST