Saturday, July 16, 2011

gpuccio, homo tardi




5:09 am

Elizabeth: Behe doesn’t, much, but Dembski teaches in a seminary!

That’s not fair from you! Dembski is a mathematician “and” a theologian. As far as I can say, he keeps the two things strictly separate. I have not found theologic arguments in his scientific books. Are you saying that a scientist cannot have a religious or theologic activity in his life?

As for me, I have never used any religious argument in my scientific debates here. And never will.

Not only that, but unlike, say Shapiro, who thinks about intelligent systems, whenever I ask here about possible design mechanisms I’m told that’s not what ID is about – it’s just about detecting design!

I don’t agree with you. This is a commonly misunderstood point. Whe we say (including me) that design detection does not need understanding the mechanisms of design, we are saying a very simple truth. That’s exactly the way it is.

That does not mean, however, that ID cannot make models of possible design mechanisms. It certainly can, as much as current data allow. Some ID proponents will discuss those models, other will not, and will just stick to the design detection point, which is however very important. But the point that design detection does not need understanding of the mechanisms of design is irrenounceable.

As for me, I have many times discussed here my idea about possible mechanisms for design of biological information, usually in response to objections like yours. I can do that again, if you are interested.

For starters I’d like to know what this “neo Darwinian” part of evolutionary theory is that is supposed to be shaky. Can you tell me? I genuinely want to know.

And I genuinely give you my answer:

a) Universal common descent is controversial, but IMO reasonable. I I accept it, like many other IDists (Behe, for instance), as a viable hypothesis. Other IDists definitely refute it. I don’t agree with them.

b) The causal mechanism for the generation of biological information proposed in classical neodarwinism, instead, is completely wrong and unsupportable. It has no empirical support nor logical consistency. I am speaking, obviously, of the concept that a mixed algorithm, including a random part (Random Variation) and a necessity part (Natural Selection) can effectively create complex functionally specified information.

c) There are obviously various forms of neo-neo darwinism, attempting alterbative “explanations”. IMO, they are worse than classical neo darwinisms. Indeed, classical neo darwinism at least proposes an explanation, although wrong. Many of these “new” forms of theory do not even try to really explain anything at the causal level. As such, they are not even scientific theories.
Neutralism is interesting (I do believe that almost all mutations are negative or neutral), but as I have tried to explain it does not add anything at the level of causal explanation. Vague references to ill defined concepts, like self organizing systems and emerging properties, are only confounding and flawed, and have no explanatory power (I am ready to discuss each of these points in detail).

Classical neo darwinism has potentially explanatory power: its mechanism of variation (RV) is well defined, and so is its necessity mechanism (NS). The problem is that the RV part, the random part, has not the probabilstic power to generate complex information selectable by the necessity part (NS).

I have affrimed many times explixitly, and I repeat it here, that if complex fucntional information were deconstructable into simple selectable steps, the classical neo darwinian model “could” work, at least in principle. But that premise is not true, never has been. There are lots of logical and empirical reasons to be certain of that.

In practice, the only viable theory to explain biological information (which is a fact) is the design theory.


Hey gpukio, you missed your calling. You should have been a dancer, because you sure can dance around the truth and facts. You obviously like to erect strawmen too.

You said: "random part (Random Variation) and a necessity part (Natural Selection)" cannot "effectively create complex functionally specified information."

Well DUH! You IDiots keep on using that same old bullshit argument, that has been shown to be bullshit many times. "Specified" requires and assumes a specifier, which, to you, is the creator/designer/god of christianity. Of course "Random Variation" and "Natural Selection" can't create "specified" information! And what's with capitalizing those terms?

You can't get away with assuming something that is not in evidence, and "specified" is NOT in evidence. Your sciency sounding terms are just bluff and bluster. And there's more to evolutionary biology or the ToE than "Random Variation" and "Natural Selection". Much more. Either you're a moron for not knowing that or you're 'intellectually dishonest' for excluding it.

And all that crap about "neo-darwinism" and "neo-neo-darwinism" (What? No capitals?) is just more bullshit and diversionary tactics. Try the term 'evolutionary biology' or the theory of evolution.

Your religious zealotry is well known and so is your cowardice. You ran away from Mark Frank's blog when things got too tough for you there. I guess it's pretty hard to argue for something when you have nothing worthwhile on your side, and when the questions make you squirm.

All of you IDiots are exactly alike. You're all dishonest, deceptive, delusional, deranged, arrogant, cowardly, sanctimonious, pious, ignorant, uneducated, and just plain fucked up.

By the way, how much "CSI" is there in a banana? You IDiots can't even calculate the CI, let alone verify the S. You IDiots can't and won't even agree on a definition for "information"!

There's no such thing as "the design theory". Theories, at least scientific ones, have much higher requirements and standards than your religion based design 'beliefs'.

How about showing and demonstrating all the "models of possible design mechanisms" you brought up, that ID "certainly can" "make"?