I guess I'll be brief; we could go on for aeons without getting anywhere. But seriously, aren't we imposing too much of our own concepts on the universe when we suggest it is an "organized information processing system"

It is one of the options on the table. Read "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd.

Satolep:

We don't even know that information is anything at all – just as mathematics, geometry, design or evolution are nothings.

Well then I guess we have nothing to discuss.

Satolep:

WRT jellyfish, it is of course just a metaphor, an invisible jellyfish in the sky sharing some but maybe not all of the attributes of an average invisible designer.

ID Theory only claims to be able to separate the attribute of intelligence from mere law and chance. IOW, ID Theory only claims to be able to detect the attribute known as intelligence, nothing more, nothing less. As it relates to the cause of life, there is as of yet no available evidence to infer the intelligence's physical looks. If you have any data that suggests otherwise, please bring it forward. Caricatures aren't helping the debate go anywhere.

Satolep:

For a starter, I would like to know if the designer indeed is a magician. If that is the case the debate is over, we will never find out.

The designer is just as magical as you are while you are designing these comments of yours. For starters, please provide a useful definition of magic as it relates to your own intelligence.

ould have been a sufficiently organized information processing system such as the universe itself,

I guess I'll be brief; we could go on for aeons without getting anywhere. But seriously, aren't we imposing too much of our own concepts on the universe when we suggest it is an "organized information processing system"

We don't even know that information is anything at all – just as mathematics, geometry, design or evolution are nothings.

WRT jellyfish, it is of course just a metaphor, an invisible jellyfish in the sky sharing some but maybe not all of the attributes of an average invisible designer.

For a starter, I would like to know if the designer indeed is a magician. If that is the case the debate is over, we will never find out.

If not, there are a lot of things we would have to start looking for.

ID vs. ToE

What do you mean ID vs. ToE? I am an ID proponent and I see evolution as the best evidence for ID.

Satolep:

Don’t the incredible diversity of life and its occupation of every thinkable geographical, physical or chemical niche all over the planet advertise the same message “Kilroy was here”?

I guess you could attempt to create that as an hypothesis. Who is Kilroy and what evidence suggests that it was him specifically? However, so far the evidence only supports the hypothesis that some type of intelligence was required. Could have been Kilroy (if it is indeed shown that hypothesis has a non zero probability), could be a previous evolving intelligence, could have been a sufficiently organized information processing system such as the universe itself, could be God; the intelligence may have itself evolved in which case we have regress issues to deal with or the intelligence may be "non-evolving." There are lots of questions but no way to test these extra questions yet, as far as I can tell. We only have evidence that an intelligent system was most likely involved as part of the causal process.

Satolep:

I don’t see ID as an adequate explanation since it explains nothing.

… other than that there may be a potentially necessary cause of specific types of patterns. If one variation (I'll call it Dembski's variation) of ID is correct, ID also tells us that this cause is detectable through mathematical reasoning.

Measuring the age of the universe, in itself also *explains* nothing. It only tells us the age of the universe. It merely furthers our knowledge. Combined with other facts we may be able to reason toward an explanatory framework for a specific question, however by itself the age of the universe also *explains* nothing. Like ID Theory it merely furthers our knowledge, if correct.

If ID Theory is correct, we can the move on to explaining other things such as how an intelligent process does indeed create specific non-random, non-lawful patterns.

Satolep:

The history of life extends over billions of years. Isn’t it about time we learned just a little about how, when and where the designer performed his magic?"

You mean the same type of magic required for you to design that comment of yours? Are you saying that you think your intelligence is magical or supernatural or something?

We can discuss how, when, and where if you like.

Satolep:

I envisage the designer as a giant invisible jellyfish in the sky, with tentacles all over the planet sprinkling thiotimoline wherever and whenever a new design like, say a bacterial flagellum is required.

… and what does your "envisioning," ie imagination, have to do with reality? Do you have access to data that suggests the intelligent system most likely is an invisible aquatic animal with tentacles — a jellyfish specifically.

I highly doubt it and thus it seems that the anti-ID proponents such as yourself are the ones who merely provide caricatures based on imagination , whereas the ID proponents argue based on available evidence.

… and I'm just curious, why do you think "jellyfish" when the evidence points to "intelligence?"

Satolep:

If there is an official version of ID addressing the many questions an inquiring mind might have, I am unaware of it.

I would highly recommend Stephen Meyers new book, "Signature in the Cell." Even though I don't agree with all of it, since I see abiogenesis as something that had to have occurred (and I'm somewhat partial to the RNA world hypothesis), It makes an excellent intro into ID Theory and the case for it.

There is a slight distinction. ID is claiming "Intelligence" is a more adequate explanation than an unguided naturalistic process such as natural selection, this is especially true in the Origin-of-Life question where even many biologists agree, natural selection is an inappropriate mechanism to invoke.

I think I see much quirky reasoning but I’ll limit my response to the argument above. Firstly, I think arguments about OOL are irrelevant to the issue of ID vs. ToE. I find the theory that a process where mutations supply the input to a selection process offering species the option of adapting to changing environments a most adequate explanation, especially since that’s what the evidence seems to say. Don’t the incredible diversity of life and its occupation of every thinkable geographical, physical or chemical niche all over the planet advertise the same message “Kilroy was here”?

From kilometres down in rocks to kilometres high mountains, down to the bottom of the oceans? Life dependent on a designer standing by to design it out of survival bottlenecks?
I don’t see ID as an adequate explanation since it explains nothing.

The history of life extends over billions of years. Isn’t it about time we learned just a little about how, when and where the designer performed his magic? I envisage the designer as a giant invisible jellyfish in the sky, with tentacles all over the planet sprinkling thiotimoline wherever and whenever a new design like, say a bacterial flagellum is required.

If there is an official version of ID addressing the many questions an inquiring mind might have, I am unaware of it. What, if any research is being dome in this field of such enormous consequences for the future of mankind?

I sort of agree that ID reduces 'other cases down to the null hypothesis' though I suspect you could narrow it down to 'the Darwinian case'. However, I disagree with your characterisation of ID as a conclusion. 'Intelligent Design' is really a description of the processes presented in ordinary science-based evidentiary fashion demonstrating that certain aspects of current (versus OOL) organic processes can arguably be shown to NOT be the result of random, mindless genesis.

In other words, the evidence of intelligent design in organic structures nullifies materialist mindless mechanical blind random genesis. It is not positing that there is a 'designer' – although some might deduce this from the argument – simply that random genesis is not feasible. Given there is not all that much evidence for it even after more than a century, it's a reasonable point.

OK, you might say: forget about NS which Darwin himself admitted was a bit of a stab in the dark and might not hold up. The core thesis is that we all evolved from animated chemical soup, from inanimate physical matter into complex living sentient beings. The evidence for this is mainly the similarity in cellular and other structure between various separate species, and moreover especially within primate, insect, & plant groups etc.

It's a nifty idea. But has yet to be proven.

I go back to my friendly beef with Salvador C about origins, because they lead naturally out of the above, namely that the assumption that the processes involved with the origins are no longer present is highly questionable. Put it this way: it's an unverifiable assumption. Why not keep things more simple (and practical)? Why not just put more emphasis on studying the nature of life that is right in front of us right now rather than going down essentially speculative – if not indeed fictive – conceptual tunnels for which there is no way the scientific method as currently conceived (i.e. working with direct physical evidence) can possibly verify one way or another?

As to the consciousness Universal Mind business, I think this is what I keep niggling towards in my posts here. Part of what I have been groping towards articulating is that a stumbling block in contemplating/examining this stuff is the rather parochial way the English language handles the notions of 'mind' or 'consciousness'. Now in Sanskrit we would have about 50 words to play with here that have subtle but distinctly different shades of meaning. In our case, we mainly use both terms in reference to individual sentient beings, so the notion of Universal Mind, although quite reasonable in theory, is polluted cognitively such that immediately most people hearing the term begin to imagine some sort of Super Being, i.e. very very BIG, but also still an individual entity or personality of some sort.

This means also that in discussing design or intelligence issues, if there is a 'larger consciousness' element that it is immediately assumed cognitively – even by most atheist types considering it – that there is some sort of individual intent, something which atheists will understandably reject out of hand, but yet which cognitively they have also created unnecessarily due to their own habitual limitations of how they just assume that 'mind' is always something bounded within the context of an individualised, and therefore personalised, container.

I'll go back to an earlier thought which I think has merit even though I have never read it anywhere else as such:

Consciousness/mind is that which allows living beings to navigate through space-time. That's part of it. Another part of it is that consciousness CREATES space-time and from that creation comes particularity and from that ability of particularity to exist gradually emerge both inanimate and inanimate life forms all of which dwell within the larger context of the space-time continuum which itself is a veritable ocean, if you will, of 'consciousness' in which the whole kit and caboodle continuously swims.

There was no first moment in the sense that as soon as spacetime emerges it is essentially infinite in the sense that a new dimension has emerged. What is 'before' is not of that dimension and therefore outside any possible field of enquiry. That's creation, actually creating something totally new. But now I am rambling. The point is that if you don't think of consciousness-mind-intelligence as something that can only be filtered through individual sentient beings or imagined bigger individual beings, and you consider the possibility that just as our bodies are made of identifiable particles and components (including iron, gold, manganese etc. etc.) that in themselves are not particular to ourselves, so also mind may be 'made' of various 'elements' that exist all around, and the key one, I am suggestion, is the spacetime continuum itself, which also is an 'inanimate' aspect of the situation just like the elements in our bodies, but at the same time cannot truly be said to be inanimate since it is simply not possible for their to be four dimensions without consciousness. If you really consider what direction and duration are you have to 'grock' at some point that they are functions of consciousness without which there would be neither space nor time since only consciousness – using the term very loosely – can perceive the difference between the current moment and a previous one, or distinguish between an upper quadrant or a lower quadrant. Only living beings in spacetime can be aware of left and right, up and down, the things that quarks do. Such a spacetime continuum cannot exist without awareness to create it.

It is so incredibly simple and basic it is very hard to express in simple basic language.

And one doesn't have to go back into the past to analyse it but simply pay attention to what is happening right now.

Positive evidence for something involves elevating it above the null hypothesis.

Granted, but you're still not providing much in the way of detail. You're only making a general statement, not a specific one.

Specifically, describe an observation that that would tell you it happened.

You can say "I don't know, Sal". That's fine. But it would help clarify the issue if you declared specifically what observation would persuade you it did happen or if you said, "I don't know what would count as positive evidence".

This is just basic logic, not some quirk of mine that I should have to explain to you.

Well, it's true I'm a little slow, so specifically what observation again would persuade you ID did happen. Maybe you can suggest what observation would affirm ID conclusively for you.

Positive evidence for something involves elevating it above the null hypothesis.

Well again,I'm a little slow. Can you tel me what would elevate the claim of ID above the null hypothesis in your mind?

Salvador T. Cordova: And what evidence would show it did happen? You're aren't being very descriptive.

Positive evidence for something involves elevating it above the null hypothesis. The case for ID simply reduces other cases down to the null hypothesis. Every single argument for ID can be recast in the form, "It can't be that, so it must be intelligent design." As much as IDers try to express these ideas as "Feature X shows intelligent design," the "proof" invariably involves showing why something else cannot generate feature X, never ever what it is about "intelligent design" that leads to feature X. No surprise, since "intelligent design" is intentionally kept undefined, making it impossible to show how it can lead to anything.

This is just basic logic, not some quirk of mine that I should have to explain to you.

I would count as positive support exactly what the words mean: evidence that showed it did happen.

And what evidence would show it did happen? You're aren't being very descriptive.

After all these years, do you still not see that?

Perhaps I don't, so perhaps you can articulate specifically what would count as evidence in your mind that it did happen.

Salvador T. Cordova: What would count as "positive support" for you?

I would count as positive support exactly what the words mean: evidence that showed it did happen. All you're presenting is evidence that "a mindless process" couldn't be the explanation.

CSI and IC and privilege planets, even if valid, only rule out a certain class of known explanations. They do not amount to any kind of positive evidence for any other explanation. After all these years, do you still not see that?

You're placing a god in the gap because you have no positive support.

What would count as "positive support" for you? Would you have to see God for yourself? For the record, I don't think asking to see God is an unreasonable demand, nay, I think wanting to see direct evidence of God is a good thing.

But just to clarify, perhaps it would helpful to spell out what you mean by "positive support".