New Peer-Reviewed Pro-ID Article in Mainstream Math/Eng Literature

Uncommon Descent ^ | August 2009 | William Dembski and Robert J. Marks II

[GodGunsGuts]

--snip--

P.S. Our critics will immediately say that this really isn’t a pro-ID article but that it’s about something else (I’ve seen this line now for over a decade once work on ID started encroaching into peer-review territory). Before you believe this, have a look at the article. In it we critique, for instance, Richard Dawkins METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL (p. 1055). Question: When Dawkins introduced this example, was he arguing pro-Darwinism? Yes he was. In critiquing his example and arguing that information is not created by unguided evolutionary processes, we are indeed making an argument that supports ID.

(for link to paper, click excerpt link below)

[GodGunsGuts]

Uh oh...somebody allowed ID scientists to be published in a mainstream journal. Head will roll.

Thanks to CottShop for turning me on to this paper.

All the best—GGG

[freedumb2003]

You can say it isn’t not about ID, but it isn’t.

The underlying article is about storage and retrieval theory. Nothing about ID at all. There is a half-hearted attempt to somehow link search approaches to “evolutionary searches” but the linkage isn’t there at all.

Among other problems, it assumes a targeted endpoint.

The tiny bit of cross-application is a variation of the now-debunked “a tornado in a junkyard can’t create a 747” comment.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[CottShop]

some may attempt to dismiss this by claiming ‘if ya don’t know where you’re going, no raod will get you there’- however, all the signs point to directed actions- not random meanderings that woopsie- result in highly complex destinations- Demski stated there would be these kinds of ‘refutaitons’ however, they are nothign of hte kind- He was right though- the damagign evidence will be poo-poo’d with silly arguments

[freedumb2003]

He was right though- the damagign evidence will be poo-poo’d with silly arguments

Woah -- typing with just one hand (been there)?

Anyway, an assertion by the author is not a contention, much less an argument.

As I said, it assumes an endpoint and certainly does not address anything close to stochastic processes.

Fun math, but this road just leads back to the origin.

[CottShop]

[[As I said, it assumes an endpoint]]

Uses endpint to show that it can’t be reached by random meanderings- the specified complexity at all stages is too great- which brings us right back to hte cruz of information theory- metainformation MUST be prtesent FIRST before any meaningful messages can be utilized and BEFORE species can remain fit enough to thrive- waving magic wands by claiming this complexity coudl arise in a stepwise process may be fun banter, but it certainly doesn’t represent reality

[CottShop]

[[Anyway, an assertion by the author is not a contention, much less an argument.]]

Bzzzt wrong- it’s demonstratable, Enter the fruitfly experiments- all miserable failures as far as macroevolution is concerned, but which showed perfectly that microevolution does indeed happen- manipulating informaiton ALREADY PRESENT and species specific- there’s unfortunately for macroevolutionists, NO evidence NEW non species specific ifnormation could arise, and experiments infact show it can’t- no matter how many mutations you throw at available info already present- Again harkening back to informaiton theory, and provign again metainformaiton MUST be present FIRST, and can not simply arise in a stepwise fashion as claiemd by macroevolutionists, but for which they have Zero evidnece to support, but for which we MUST beleive happened trillions of times leavign absolutely no evidnece behind to show it happening.... Quite hte evolutionsry trick if I might say so myself.

End results DO show the NEED for guided Designing, and guided roadmaps- no amount of magic wand waving will dismiss this- nature is incapable of the intelligent guidance minus metainformation present FIRST to make sure everythign meshes to keep the species fit and thriving

[Wacka]

Showing your ignorance of biology again.

[freedumb2003]

End results DO show the NEED for guided Designing, and guided roadmaps- no amount of magic wand waving will dismiss this- nature is incapable of the intelligent guidance minus metainformation present FIRST to make sure everythign meshes to keep the species fit and thriving

You (and Dembski and crew) discount (actually ignore) the inherent stochastic nature of the evolutionary process. Using search analogies to somehow suggest that Evolution "searches" for something is just wrong. This is an attempt to yoke a completely irrelevant, if somewhat interesting, model to a mature model.

As an approach to search theories (more closely linked to AI than ID), the paper works. To suggest it has any bearing on Evolution, much less produces the result "therefore there is an ID," is mere sophistry.

[stormer]

I modified the old saw. The problem is the implication that all solutions are equally valid - clearly not the case.

[CottShop]

[[Using search analogies to somehow suggest that Evolution “searches” for something is just wrong.]]

Algoriths DO search- they weed out, they artifically protect, they artificially isolate, they artifically multiply beyond what nature does when it ‘finds’ the ‘right combos’ etc etc etc- That is NOT how nature works

[[As an approach to search theories (more closely linked to AI than ID), the paper works.]]

Excuse me? AI MUST have an intelligent Designer- You’re a step behind I’m afraid- Chemicals can not, for hte reasons spelled out clearly in ‘Life’s Irreducible Structures’ (which can be foudn here on FR) can NOT give rise to intelligent order and structure and metainformation- period- the Intelligence MUST be present first to maintain species fitness and viability- and further, there is a minimum amount of specified complexity NEEDED before a species can self-sustain in a fit condition long enough to reproduce, but unbfortunately, nature can NOT supply this minimum specified compelxity- Stochastic means just makes htis even more relevent- not less as you seem to be suggesting- Random ‘guesswork’ on nature’s part leads to confusion- NOT highly specific complexity- in order to construct higher complexity- you NEED a completed system of metainformation orchestrating, and conducting EVERY system in order to maintain species fitness- Stochastic constructions would result in nothing more meaningful than static without soem guiding intelligent instructions inplace BEFORE hand- but hten again, this defeats the idea of Stochastic evolution

[count-your-change]

From the paper I would get the idea that searches with even a complicated algorithm are no better than random searches unless the algorithm contains specific information about what and where it is searching, i.e., information has to come first.

[FreedomProtector]

Thanks for posting.

[AndrewC]

You can say it isn’t not about ID, but it isn’t.

Yeah, right.. Dembski and Marks are the authors and it has nothing to do with ID? You can say it is not about ID, but the authors state it is pro-ID, a distinction which falls outside of your comprehension. British are pro-American. That does not make them American.

Among other problems, it assumes a targeted endpoint.

"METHINKS ∗ IT ∗ IS ∗ LIKE ∗ A ∗ WEASEL" certainly is a targeted endpoint. That statement is introduced by Dawkins, not Dembski or Marks. The crudest example of idiot programming, which even Scientific American cites, is a program by Richard Hardison. The program is definitely designed to produce "TOBEORNOTTOBE" and only that phrase. It will produce no other. Here it is in its glory. Remember, Scientific American uses it as an example..(I cleaned the code so it would work)

30 N = 0
40 FOR G = 1 TO 10
50 T = 0
60 GOTO 80
70 X = INT (26 * RND (1)) + 1: RETURN
80 GOSUB 70
90 N = N + 1
100 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T";: IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 120
110 GOTO 60
120 N = N + 1
130 GOSUB 70
140 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O ";: IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 160
150 GOTO 120 
160 N = N + 1 
170 GOSUB 70 
180 IF X = 2 THEN PRINT "B";: IF X = 2 THEN GOTO 200 
190 GOTO 160 
200 N = N + 1 
210 GOSUB 70 
220 IF X = 5 THEN PRINT "E ";: IF X = 5 THEN GOTO 240 
230 GOTO 200 
240 T = T + 1
250 IF T = 2 THEN GOTO 460 
260 N = N + 1 
270 GOSUB 70 
280 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O";: IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 300 
290 GOTO 260 
300 N = N + 1 
310 GOSUB 70 
320 IF X = 18 THEN PRINT "R ";: IF X = 18 THEN GOTO 340 
330 GOTO 300 
340 N = N + 1 
350 GOSUB 70 
360 IF X = 14 THEN PRINT "N";: IF X = 14 THEN GOTO 380 
370 GOTO 340
380 N = N + 1 
390 GOSUB 70 
400 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O";: IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 420 
410 GOTO 380 
420 N = N + 1 
430 GOSUB 70 
440 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T ";: IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 60 
450 GOTO 420 
460 PRINT : PRINT "N=";N;" KEYS PRESSED TO WRITE 'TO BE OR NOT TO BE'" 
470 PRINT "FOR";G;" RUN(S) OF PROGRAM"
480 PRINT 
490 NEXT G 
500 END
510 REM  IF THE PROGRAM WERE 
511 REM  WRITTEN TO INCLUDE 
512 REM  PUNCTUATION MARKS ETC. 
513 REM  THE PROGRAM WOULD 
514 REM  TAKE LONGER, BUT WOULD 
515 REM  STILL NOT BE PROHIBI- 
516 REM  TIVE 
517 PRINT
518 PRINT "WITH 3000 RUNS, THE MEAN" 
519 PRINT "# of trials=333" 
520 PRINT "THE MEAN TIME REQUIRED" 
521 PRINT "WAS .14 MINUTES TO PRINT" 
522 PRINT "TOBEORNOTTOBE" 

The tiny bit of cross-application is a variation of the now-debunked “a tornado in a junkyard can’t create a 747” comment.

Show me the reference in the paper. I will show you a relevant one from it.

Yet, there is no discrepancy between the successful experience of practitioners with such versatile search algorithms and the COI-imposed inability of the search algorithms themselves to create novel information [7], [13], [15]. Such information does not magically materialize but instead results from the action of the programmer who prescribes how knowledge about the problem gets folded into the search algorithm. [emphasis mine]

As to the Hardison program, here is the "fastest", "shortest" program which produces his result and is of the same utility as his.

1 PRINT "TOBEORNOTTOBE" : END

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Woah -- typing with just one hand (been there)?

Whoa, thinking with just one brain cell?

[whattajoke]

By posting this are we to now assume you accept a 5 billion yr old plus earth, evolution via natural selection, and the chance that God is dead as the authors have asserted?

[UCANSEE2]

It seems odd that we are trying to scientifically define the ‘age’ of the Earth (or Universe, which is a real laugh), based on the ever changing rotation of a cloudy blue dot around a mid-sized star, out in the strands of an indistinguishable galaxy amongst an infinity of stellar objects.

It may be the only base reference we have, but it is a variable, for starters.