From: NSS (kirk@newscholars.com)
Date: Tue Nov 11 2003 - 10:13:38 EST
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.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 11 2003 - 20:16:39 EST