Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Why ID doesn't look like Real Design Detection

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,18:17    On Ftk's thead, Reed suggested the following.  I don't really think Ftk will address it as well...duh.  But I think it is an interesting topic without Ftk (probably more so, actually). The topics of archeology and forensic science is fascinating to many people.  Contrasting them with the cartoonish views that IDiots have of them could be enjoyable. Maybe FTK can take a stab at explaining what ID theory can contribute to this. John Hawks (one of my all time favorite bloggers) has an extensive post that describes real world design detection in archeology. Pigment use and symbolic behavior in the Neandertals Some points of note:    * The proposed designer is explicitly identified.    * Ascribing design to the artifacts is done by identifying, analyzing and reproducing the methods the designers might have used, along with demonstrating that naturally modified items of the same composition do not share the same characteristics.    * Multiple independent lines of evidence support the assertion that the artifacts are designed. Not only are the modifications identified as non-natural, uses are proposed and identified.    * Abstract concepts like CSI or the "information content" of designed artifacts are not used. So FTK: ID proponents like to use archeology as an example of design detection, but why doesn't real world design detection look anything like ID theory ? Why can't these archeologists just calculate the CSI of those pigment blocks and run it through the 'nixplanatory filter ? Edited to give proper credit -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,19:35    Oh, alright at last a subject I can really sink my teeth into. Come on FTK, let's talk archaeology method and theory. I'll even give you bonus points if you include mention of the paradigms developed by Binford and Schiffer! -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,20:13    I get to watch. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,20:26    Strip out the ID bullshit and what we are really detecting is human activity. We can detect human activity, past and present, because we are intimately familiar with human activity and its characteristics. The analogy to ID fails because we know nothing whatsoever about the purported "designer" or it's characteristics. Simple as that. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,20:26    Quote (Dr.GH @ July 15 2008,20:13) I get to watch. Gary, do you like to watch train wrecks too? This is going to be a little bit slower, but it will be a train wreck nonetheless. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,20:57    Quote (Dr.GH @ July 15 2008,20:13) I get to watch. I get to criticize.

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,21:13    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 15 2008,20:26) Quote (Dr.GH @ July 15 2008,20:13) I get to watch. Gary, do you like to watch train wrecks too? This is going to be a little bit slower, but it will be a train wreck nonetheless. As if ftk is really going to actively participate in this discussion. It's not a wreck if the train never leaves the station. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,21:35    does this deserve its own thread?

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,21:49    I would be surprised if FTK showed up and had a go at the question. For FTK to discuss anything she needs to be able to swipe it from the works of others (Brown, Luskin, Dembski, etc). Problem is, other than to make a few vague analogies, IDists have been surprisingly mute on the subject. I expect stevestory is right when he questions the value of a separate thread. A hominin can still hope though... -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,23:03    Does this deserve its own thread? Not sure, but I think a case can be made.  If the case rests solely upon Ftk's participation, then no.  However, I think the topic goes well beyond Ftk. Why do IDiots gravitate toward archeology and forensic science?  What makes them think the comparison is accurate?  Where are the blindspots (besides the obvious tardity) that make them unable to filter human activity (which leads them to their CSI bullshit)? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,23:33    I'm not sure it doesn't deserve its own thread, i just thought you meant this to be a topic for ftk when you ended the post with Quote So FTK: ID proponents like to use archeology as an example of design detection, but why doesn't real world design detection look anything like ID theory ? Why can't these archeologists just calculate the CSI of those pigment blocks and run it through the 'nixplanatory filter ? If it's supposed to be a serious exploration of why why scientists, historians, forensic specialists, etc don't use Dembski's absurd method, then that's an interesting question deserving of its own thread, but not one which ftk really has the ability to understand or discuss. (editad to fix teh grammars!) Edited by stevestory on July 16 2008,00:34

Reed Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,00:05    Oh, I don't expect FTK to respond (not coherently anyway...) I only posted the original in FTKs thread and addressed it to her because I can't yet start new ones, and it seemed like a good thing to bash her about the head with. It's bugged me for a long time that ID proponents claim scientists do use "design inference"  (along with their stupid "what if aliens found Mount Rushmore" line), completely ignoring the fact that such inferences are based very specific evidence, not some vague handwaving about information theory. This seemed like a clear, accessible illustration of the difference. To push the point a bit further, one could speculate how these blocks of manganese dioxide would be interpreted if found somewhere not associated with human activity. Would we "detect design" at all, or would we just go "hmm, that's strange" and file it away ? ID seems to claim that design is detectable regardless of context, where real science depends a great deal on it. But perhaps one of our other resident ID enthusiasts (LCD, R o' B ?) would like explain why I've got it all wrong. I suggest not looking at Reciprocating Bills post, as it contains spoilers

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,00:36    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2008,18:26) Strip out the ID bullshit and what we are really detecting is human activity. We can detect human activity, past and present, because we are intimately familiar with human activity and its characteristics. The analogy to ID fails because we know nothing whatsoever about the purported "designer" or it's characteristics. Simple as that. Oh yeah?  Well, what if humans are made in the image of teh Designer designer?  Then His his designs would resemble our own and we could detect them, couldn't we? What do you say now, Mr. Smarty Pants? -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,04:14    Quote (keiths @ July 16 2008,06:36) Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2008,18:26) Strip out the ID bullshit and what we are really detecting is human activity. We can detect human activity, past and present, because we are intimately familiar with human activity and its characteristics. The analogy to ID fails because we know nothing whatsoever about the purported "designer" or it's characteristics. Simple as that. Oh yeah?  Well, what if humans are made in the image of teh Designer designer?  Then His his designs would resemble our own and we could detect them, couldn't we? What do you say now, Mr. Smarty Pants? I'm sure Bill will come up with a vastly more erudite and complete answer than I will but I'll have a quick stab at one answer for you: Follow the reasoning: Axiom 1: We can detect human design because we are intimately familiar with human activity and characteristics. Axiom 2: Humans were made in the image of Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity. Proposition 1: From Axioms 1 and 2 we can therefore state that we should be able to detect the work of Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity as it is similar to that of humans. However, taking further data into account: 1) Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity is much better than we lowly humans and its designs be gooooooood. Therefore: 2) Examples of design that are not only sub optimal but actually worse than what a human would design serve as disconfirmation of Axiom 2. So: A human designer would never have put the testicles on the outside, within kicking distance. The testicles are on the outside well within the reach of a hobnailed boot. Therefore: Axiom 2 is false. Or at least needs modification to "Teh Unspecificaterised Telic Entity is a woman, and a mean one at that." In which case we should expect that the design of the universe changes roughly every twenty eight days for roughly 4 days or so to an environment specifically hostile to male H. sapiens. One that can inexplicably be made less hostile with Haagen Dazs. Quod erat demonstratum. Louis P.S. Just in case some ID loon thinks I'm entirely serious, I'm not. The above is at least mildly tongue in cheek. -------------- Bye.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,04:25    Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,02:14) P.S. Just in case some ID loon thinks I'm entirely serious, I'm not. The above is at least mildly tongue in cheek. Good point.  I'd probably be wise to disavow my previous comment before Ftk decides that I'm a fellow cdesign proponentsist. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,04:58    Twas written above: Quote Posts: 322 Joined: April 2007  (Permalink) Posted: July 15 2008,20:57     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote (Dr.GH @ July 15 2008,20:13) I get to watch. I get to criticize.   I get to laugh.  :)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,05:08    Quote (keiths @ July 16 2008,10:25) Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,02:14) P.S. Just in case some ID loon thinks I'm entirely serious, I'm not. The above is at least mildly tongue in cheek. Good point.  I'd probably be wise to disavow my previous comment before Ftk decides that I'm a fellow cdesign proponentsist. FTK makes a habit of misquoting people. One relatively entertaining example was when she reproduced a tongue in cheek post of mine at her website conveniently removing the P.S. which pointed out to her that it was a joke. When she was called on this abject piece of dishonesty, she put the P.S. back in with the emphasis changed to suit her needs, despite the fact that I disavowed the emphasis she put on it and explained the humour therein. I find it's best to stick such disclaimers on posts simply because of the limited nature of the written word. Body langauge, tone etc being almost impossible to convey through text alone. Also, it's funny when the terminally dishonest, like FTK, do something like I describe above. Kind of makes any point I might be making for me now doesn't it! Anyway, enough comedy, back to the archaeology and good stuff. I'm looking forward to reading a discussion about Australopithicene anatomy. Not a subject I know a huge amount of detail about, so I'll be chuffed to read what those more expert chappies and chappesses produce as a spur to go and learn more. Go you ahead archeologically learned folk. I think waiting for FTK (and even encouraging her participation in this thread) is a waste of everyone's time. She's manifestly not interested in learning anything, just reproducing creationist dogma as if it had something significant to say. Louis Done edit for teh tpyos. -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,06:35    Back a handful of years ago, I brought the kids down here to visit my Aunt Helen, and took them to the beach for the first time. My son, maybe 8, picked up a small shiny black triangularish object, and asked,"Is this an arrowhead?" I made an inference regarding its design. "No, I don't think so.  It'd have to go on a pretty small arrow, don't you think?" I was familiar with arrows, and this one would have to be about the size of a large sewing needle. I suspected it was a random piece of rock or shell with an interesting shape. Then he picked up another, with an almost identical shape.  Then another and another. They were much more interesting now, and I had a better idea of what they were.  We hung on to a few, and put them in a bag with our seashells. That afternoon, we visited the North Carolina Maritime Museum, and in a case there found a bunch of examples of those objects. They were shark teeth. Conclusion?  Not designed, but cool anyway. Imagine that!  I had never even heard of The Explanatory Filter at the time!  Thought I'd share a pre-coffee science related almost topical rambling. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Timothy McDougald Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,07:38    Shark teeth not designed? Come now, everyone knows shark teeth were designed to eat coconuts - just like T-rex. -------------- Church burning ebola boy FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me. PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Wolfhound Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,07:45    Quote (afarensis @ July 16 2008,07:38) Shark teeth not designed? Come now, everyone knows shark teeth were designed to eat coconuts - just like T-rex. :p Aquatic coconuts?  Or terrestrial coconuts that the benevolent, happy, friendly, cooperative pre-Fludde T-rexes obligingly tossed into the water for them? -------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

lkeithlu Posts: 321 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,08:28    Quote (Wolfhound @ July 16 2008,07:45) Quote (afarensis @ July 16 2008,07:38) Shark teeth not designed? Come now, everyone knows shark teeth were designed to eat coconuts - just like T-rex. :p Aquatic coconuts?  Or terrestrial coconuts that the benevolent, happy, friendly, cooperative pre-Fludde T-rexes obligingly tossed into the water for them? Now, YOU KNOW that sharks waited along the coconut migration route to pick off the old or sick ones.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,09:03    Quote (lkeithlu @ July 16 2008,08:28) Quote (Wolfhound @ July 16 2008,07:45) Quote (afarensis @ July 16 2008,07:38) Shark teeth not designed? Come now, everyone knows shark teeth were designed to eat coconuts - just like T-rex. :p Aquatic coconuts?  Or terrestrial coconuts that the benevolent, happy, friendly, cooperative pre-Fludde T-rexes obligingly tossed into the water for them? Now, YOU KNOW that sharks waited along the coconut migration route to pick off the old or sick ones. The European or African route? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,09:13    That's right; completely off topic! Once again the article shows clearly: 1. that scientists disagree with one another 2. that they explore ideas that run contrary to current thought 3. that they are driven by a desire for new knowledge. All of these things are exactly what the ID community says scientists don't do. Your erasing my comment doesn't change any of that, Ftk. Why don't you address the issue of the ID community's fabrication of the scientific enterprise instead of trying to edit reality? Cross-posted to somewhere intellectually honest. From here. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,09:59    Quote (blipey @ July 16 2008,15:03) Quote (lkeithlu @ July 16 2008,08:28) Quote (Wolfhound @ July 16 2008,07:45)   Quote (afarensis @ July 16 2008,07:38) Shark teeth not designed? Come now, everyone knows shark teeth were designed to eat coconuts - just like T-rex. :p Aquatic coconuts?  Or terrestrial coconuts that the benevolent, happy, friendly, cooperative pre-Fludde T-rexes obligingly tossed into the water for them? Now, YOU KNOW that sharks waited along the coconut migration route to pick off the old or sick ones. The European or African route? Coconuts aren't migratory! You're thinking of swallows (or bats*). Louis P.S. I wonder if we can keep this going long enough to  make it relevant. After all, coconuts and swallows share a common ancestor.....FIND ME FOSSILS, BITCHES! *Ween fans with the "Live at Stubb's 7/2000" album will know what I mean. Any Texans amongst you been to Stubb's? Sounds like a good place. -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,11:30    Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,10:59) You're thinking of swallows (or bats*). European, or African? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,11:41    Quote (Lou FCD @ July 16 2008,17:30) Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,10:59) You're thinking of swallows (or bats*). European, or African? As usual Lou you have missed the important question which is: What is your favourite colour? ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,11:45    Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,12:41) Quote (Lou FCD @ July 16 2008,17:30) Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,10:59) You're thinking of swallows (or bats*). European, or African? As usual Lou you have missed the important question which is: What is your favourite colour? ;-) Louis uh blue. no yellow. AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

drew91 Posts: 32 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,12:09    Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,09:59) Any Texans amongst you been to Stubb's? Sounds like a good place. Yup.  It's a good place to take in a show.  Nice open courtyard that'll comfortably hold ~2000 (if I had to guess).  There's decent grub too.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,12:15    Quote (drew91 @ July 16 2008,18:09) Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,09:59) Any Texans amongst you been to Stubb's? Sounds like a good place. Yup.  It's a good place to take in a show.  Nice open courtyard that'll comfortably hold ~2000 (if I had to guess).  There's decent grub too. Nice. I've heard good things about the barbeque sauce. Now I'm not saying that I am some ridiculous, sauce addicted, fat bastard*, but I have been tempted to make a deliberate pilgrimage completely informal and inconsequential journey when convenient to the USA to get some. Louis *Cue "HA HA THIS IS YOU" from the usual suspects in 3....2......1 -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 16 2008,12:17    Quote (Lou FCD @ July 16 2008,17:45) Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,12:41) Quote (Lou FCD @ July 16 2008,17:30)   Quote (Louis @ July 16 2008,10:59) You're thinking of swallows (or bats*). European, or African? As usual Lou you have missed the important question which is: What is your favourite colour? ;-) Louis uh blue. no yellow. AAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Sorry, that should have been: "What is your favourite colour of Australopithicene, and what anatomical features can be used to identify it?" I am nothing if not on topic. And I am certainly not on topic. Tip waitress...Try veal...is this thing on...am I too hip for room...etc Louis P.S. That was TOO a joke. Bastards. -------------- Bye.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard