Thought Provoker: A purposeful, natural process is sufficient to answer all ID "observations". There is no reason the process has to be embodied in an agent (i.e. a "designer") and there are no arguments being made that this agent needs the ability to learn (i.e. "intelligent"). So why are we talking about an intelligent designer?

It is not the ability to "learn" that is relevant. It is the ability to use language, imagination, process information, and consider and pursue distant goals.

We know of no natural process that can account for the leap to symbolic language and information processing. Mindless matter has no need to ever move beyond actual actions and reactions according to blind obedience to mere chance and the laws of chemistry and physics. There is no reason to expect that an unguided universe would not remain dead* for its entire existence.

Regarding ID proponents acknowledging nontheistic sources of design, the original The Mystery of Life's Origin did this. See the thread on Fred Hoyle and Front-Loaded Evolution.

I am after useful knowledge. What does ID offer in this quest?

It offers consistent treatment of observed data.

Regarding biological ID, this means the possibility of a consistent treatment of language and information, as distinct from "it works this way, except for the origin of biological information, where matter did something we've never observed or known it to do, cannot describe, and have no evidence for". It is comparable to replacing the open "possibilities" of alchemy with understanding the real limitations of chemistry.

The origin of language and information consistently involves intelligence. On its own, mindless matter behaves consistently, then and now.

*Addendum: to state it more accurately, by "dead" I am meaning devoid of the kind of language and information based life as we know it.

Keith asserts:

3. The "peer-reviewed, PEER REVIEWED" article you cite in Nature proposes a variation in the fine-structure constant which is orders of magnitude too small to lend support to a young-earth cosmology like Setterfield's.

So tell me keith, according Davies, how much did the speed of light decay from say time T0 to T+6000 years? You misrepresented what the YEC C-decay cosmologies suggest. You said:

Keiths said:

Thus the largest possible variation, according to Davies, would be -0.90 x 10^-5 in 6 billion years. If so, then

(1 - 0.90 x 10^-5)α gives the value 6 billion years ago.

Ah, but the question should be not what happened to C over the last 6 billion years, but what happened to C the first 6000 years. So keith, how much did the speed of light decay in the first 6000 years in Davies cosmology. The answer is billions of times if not more.

Davies in his own words

"If the speed of light varies, potentially it could have been anything 12-15 billion years ago when the Big Bang occurred," Davies says. "The speed of light could have been infinite at that time, which would explain a lot about our current universe."

If, and a big IF, the speed of light decreased by billions of times in the first 6000 years, then the assumption of an old universe based on distances for starlight to travel is shown to be a circular, hence Davies unwittingly demonstrate flaws in his other assumptions (namely that the universe is 12-15 billion years old).

The requirement for old ages then is only driven by the flawed belief in stellar and biological evolution (time by the way is the enemy, not friend of building stars and life), not by physics. But if the cosmos is specially created versus evolved, then there is no need for long ages.

In fact astro physical observation of the most distant stars shows them to look the same age as the nearby ones, which violoates axioms of Big Bang cosmology. However, this enigma and nearly all does not exist in a YEC C-decay, ready-made universe cosmology.

Thus, your little diatribe them shown to a bit disingenuous. Davies, conceding a possibly infinite speed of light, gives many orders of magnitude of what is needed for YEC C-decay cosmology. In fact, we only need about a factor of 10^10 in the FIRST six thousand years or so.

1. You've completely ignored my criticisms of your "100-byte program producing the complete works of Shakespeare" analogy.

That's true, I don't find all of what you say worth reading or responding to.

Some time (hahaha) in 1999, the Los Angeles Times ran a series of lengthy science articles on string physics, etc. One of the articles was entitled something like 'Space, Time Obsolete in New View of Universe'.

Huw Price is a very stimulating heavyweight in the philosophy and physics of time.

Four points I want to make:

1. You've completely ignored my criticisms of your "100-byte program producing the complete works of Shakespeare" analogy.

2. Contrary to your protests, you did ignore David Heddle's point about the fine-structure constant, just as you ignored my criticisms of your analogy. You responded, but you only offered vague assurances about how with "moderate modifications" Big Bang assumptions could be reconciled with Setterfield's cosmology. You ddn't address Heddle's concern at all.

3. The "peer-reviewed, PEER REVIEWED" article you cite in Nature proposes a variation in the fine-structure constant which is orders of magnitude too small to lend support to a young-earth cosmology like Setterfield's.

4. Setterfield himself writes that variations in the fine-structure constant cannot account for changes in the speed of light. The Nature article you repeatedly cite lends no support at all to Setterfield's hypothesis, by Setterfield's own argument.

Since you're fond of math, let's do a little. Recall that the speed of light c is related to the fine-structure constant α by

α = e²/ħc,

where e is the electron charge and ħ is Planck's constant. Solving for c, we obtain

c = e²/ħα

The Nature article proposes a variation in α of

Δα/α = -0.72 ± 0.18 x 10^-5

over the past 6"“10 billion years.

Thus the largest possible variation, according to Davies, would be -0.90 x 10^-5 in 6 billion years. If so, then

(1 - 0.90 x 10^-5)α gives the value 6 billion years ago.

Substituting into the equation for c, we find that c back then was at most 1/(1 - 0.90 x 10^-5) times its value today.

Numerically, that means c 6 billion years ago was at most 1.000009 times its value today, or .0009 % faster, according to the Nature article.

Compare this to Setterfield's claim that on the first day of creation (about 6,000 years ago), light was able to travel from the center of our galaxy to Earth, a distance of about 26,000 light years, in under three seconds.

That would correspond to a light speed of 26,000 years/3 seconds = 2.735 x 10^11 times the current value.

That means that according to Setterfield, the speed of light has decreased by at least a factor of 2.735 x 10^11 in 6000 years. According to the Nature article, it has decreased at most by a factor of 1.000009 in six billion years. Crunch the numbers, and you'll find that Davies' and Setterfield's numbers disagree by a factor of 2.735 x 10^17.

Conclusion:
What you proudly tout as a "peer-reviewed, PEER REVIEWED" article in Nature disagrees with Setterfield's cosmology by a factor of 273,500,000,000,000,000.

If that weren't bad enough, Setterfield himself says that variations in the fine-structure constant cannot explain changes in the speed of light:

…the quantity being measured here is the fine structure constant, alpha. This is made up of 4 other atomic quantities in two groups of two each. The first is the product of Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c. Since the beginning of this work in the 1980's it has been demonstrated that the product hc is an absolute constant. That is to say it is invariant with all changes in the properties of the vacuum. Thus, if h goes up, c goes down in inverse proportion. Therefore, the fine structure constant, alpha, cannot register any changes in c or h individually, and, as we have just pointed out, the product hc is also invariant.
As a consequence, any changes in alpha must come from the other ratio involved, namely the square of the electronic charge, e, divided by the permittivity of free space.

Thus, even by Setterfield's own reckoning, the Nature article does not support his hypothesis.

I trust you'll do the honorable thing, Sal, and stop citing this article in support of Setterfield's bogus cosmology.

You wrote…

I must point out your last sentence is not completely fair. When I used the phrase, "telling it like it is" it was in the context of a specific question about the information problem in the origin of life.

I will admit to the possibility that I was being unfair there. However, if you look back the "specific question" we were discussing was your statement that "Mechanism is an inappropriate way to characterize the functioning of intelligence or the emergence of specified complexity."

This is not a minor ID side issue, it is THE ID issue. While I am sure you would like everyone to just concede this point (which would simultaniously concede the existance of the supernatural), It is unreasonable to expect a neutral observer to do so.

But on the gripping hand (third hand ala Mote in God's Eye) I have enjoyed this discussion and hope you will spend more time at Telic Thoughts. I will look more into Trevors and Yockey, but I have no problem with concept of natural limitations like Speed of Light and Heisenberg uncertanties. Joy has been hinting the we have to retool our thinking. The concept of time is undergoing radical redefinition. It is practically a given that there are more than 3+1 dimensions. We continue to work at it. And we are making progress even if we are doing it the "inappropriate way".

Dembski has a more general view, rather than OOL, he takes the same argument to encompass Darwinian evolution in addition to OOL. That is a more difficult task, but I think he is correct.

Of course you do.

It will become even more difficult if and when you try to get past the philosophical and political posturing. What are you and Dembski proposing besides the rallying of people who are predisposed to believe you?

A purposeful, natural process is sufficient to answer all ID "observations". There is no reason the process has to be embodied in an agent (i.e. a "designer") and there are no arguments being made that this agent needs the ability to learn (i.e. "intelligent"). So why are we talking about an intelligent designer? I think we all know the answer to that.

Provoking Thought

Thought Provoker wrote:

if you want to have a philosophical and religious discussion, that's fine. I could and would participate and we could have a lively discussion as to why your beliefs are any more valid than Socrates, Pythagoras, Buddha, Mohamed, etc. However, please don't pretend that you are simply telling like it is.

I thank you for your previous comment, but I must point out your last sentence is not completely fair. When I used the phrase, "telling it like it is" it was in the context of a specific question about the information problem in the origin of life. This question was explored and argued quite well by the atheist Jack Trevors and agnostic Hubert Yockey. The question at hand was the bearing that algorithmic information theory (AIT) had on the origin of life.

The phrase "telling it like it is" was not referring to my personal beliefs which I have said could be wrong. So I would appreciate that you not imply I was making a pretense.

That aside, let me clarify why I engage others like yourself. You raise questions that others on my side are interested in hearing answers for. It also helps me refine some of the written materials I'm preparing for ID courses. My replies are not meant to try to win you over (though, I hope the discussion is informative to you), but for the sake of readers who wish to hear the ID side of the story. I hope the discussion of AIT whetted the appetite of some of our readers.

AIT relates to MDL (minimum description length) which is the formalization of Occams razor. MDL wiki. Trevors (an atheist) correctly argued that the MDL of life and thus the formalized measure of Occams razor for life implies OOL will not be solvable by the current laws of physics or any future law of physics which may be discovered. He argued we either redefine science or simply write off the search. We have principles of uncertainty in science (ala Heisenberg) or incompleteness in math (Godel), and Trevors and Yockey are proposing that we have reached that point. One could of course speculate a falsifiable hypothesis (like ID), and though the idea is not formally proven, it will follow the form of a Popperian scientific hypothesis.

I felt reluctant to even comment on Trevor's atheism or Yockey's agnosticism here as that is their personal business, but I only do so to point out that the inferences I mentioned above were not argued from a philosophical viewpoint but from principles in the information industry, and by someone who would be more inclined to eschew ID. Trevors, with great intellectual integrity, setting aside his personal views, simply tells it like it is with respect to OOL. Yockey as well.

Dembski has a more general view, rather than OOL, he takes the same argument to encompass Darwinian evolution in addition to OOL. That is a more difficult task, but I think he is correct.

You wrote…

If God exists and is deeply invovled in the workings of reality, I can think of no greater scientific discovery.

This gets into semantics. I make a distinction between science and philosophy. I believe many others do this too when they make a distinction between science and religion.

If you define science as simply the search for truth, then religion is the ultimate science. This is why I use the term "knowledge" in an attempt to explain the distinction. The existance of a supernatural being might be the ultimate philosophical truth but it wouldn't be a great scientific discovery any more than declaring 2+2=5 would be a great mathimatical discovery.

If a big booming voice was heard all over the world (in all different languages) commanding us to prepare for the events descibed in the Book of Revelation, it would hardly be a great scientific discovery.

As an engineer (me) to a fellow engineer (you), I can only say I'll respect your belief system and right to follow your conscience. God only wants people who have chosen him of their own free will, not because they were indoctrinated. That of course is the personal side of ID.

If however, you are interested in the commercial money making side of ID, I have suggested that the Dembki's EF will help us uncover and reverse engineer the hidden codes of life and help us make breakthroughs in the pharmaceutical industry.

You may have a wrong impression of what I am saying at multiple levels. This is neither about my beliefs nor my financial well-being, at lest not directly. However, Indirectly it is influenced be my determined belief in exploration and learning, to challenge and to be challenged, to think. And yes, my ability to think does put money in my pocket.

Speaking of thinking… I am interested to learn how you rationalize simultaneously rejecting and accepting a naturalist approach to the same subject. If (and it is a big "if") Dembki's EF can be repeatably applied and tested in real world applications, then it is naturalistic. We can reverse engineer why it works and gain insight in the mechanisms behind it. That would be useful knowledge.

However, if the EF is equivalent to the Oracle at Delphi we can have a philisophical argument about who is wiser than whom, but it wouldn't be very useful.

In conclusion, if you want to have a philosophical and religious discussion, that's fine. I could and would participate and we could have a lively discussion as to why your beliefs are any more valid than Socrates, Pythagoras, Buddha, Mohamed, etc. However, please don't pretend that you are simply telling like it is.

Provoking Thought

If God exists and is deeply invovled in the workings of reality, I can think of no greater scientific discovery.

As far as natural designers, even though I personally think their role is minor, I have at least given them a favorable hearing in my writings. Frank Tipler's "God" is the sort of pantheistic God even an atheist might love. I pointed to Shapiro's bacterial intelligence. I have given their writings a hearing, at least more so than most of my other comrades.

I'm not involved in the public school issue yet. My interest is personal and on behalf of friends and colleagues worried about their careers. I write not so much to persuade individuals like you as to inform and educate sympathetic parties. I'm not trying to push any ideas on you. However, if you comment on something I say, I will often respond. I have tried to show you that mechanistic arguments may be an innappropriate approach to certain aspects of physical reality.

Occam's razor looks for the simplest explanation, but algorithmic information theory gives an idea of how simple an explanation can be. If the complexity of the problem at hand indicates the explanation cannot be simpler than X amount of bits, then that limit must be respected. It not a matter of whether God did it or not. It is a matter of the complexity level of the solution. Life's solution can not come from a simple mechanism. It may proceed from a complex one, but at that point the complexity of the mechanism is no different than something like special creation, at that point is questionable if special creation should be called a mechanism.

As an engineer (me) to a fellow engineer (you), I can only say I'll respect your belief system and right to follow your conscience. God only wants people who have chosen him of their own free will, not because they were indoctrinated. That of course is the personal side of ID.

If however, you are interested in the commercial money making side of ID, I have suggested that the Dembki's EF will help us uncover and reverse engineer the hidden codes of life and help us make breakthroughs in the pharmaceutical industry.

Look at Autostereograms. They are an example of designs embedded in apparently random patterns. (For that matter, a modem signal to the human ear sounds like white noise, but it is actually complex specified information.) The autostereogram is an example of steganography. The apparently random patterns of life may actually contain hidden codes. If those codes are reverse engineered, there could be great material wealth for those who succeed.

But for me personally, I'm just seeking to find evidence for God. ID proper does not go that far, but it takes me to the doorstep. Whether there is any benefit for you in ID is for you to decide.

If you go the way of Yockey and Trevors and assign the mystery of life to something unknowable, I think that is a respectable position. I however will go one step further and speculate that life was made by God and that God has spoken to men in ages past. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I can't imagine that there are much greater ideas to explore than His existence.

Whether ID will make money in the future is somewhat dependent on how effectively and cheaply Solexa technology will come.

You wrote…

I only point this out to show the position you have placed your self in. If you insist on accepting only causal agencies which can be explained mechanistically, and rejecting those which cannot be described mechanistically, you are guaranteed to make wrong inferences about reality.

If you follow your insistence on mechanistic explanations, you'll be forced to deny even your own intellligence as a causal explanation since you cannot desribe it mechanistically. You'll reject it as an explanation, even if it is the correct one, simply because you can't describe the true phenomenon mechanistically.

The quest for naturalistic origins of life (as in simple, repeatable mechanisms) is like asking how color pictures can be generated by black ink on white paper. The exploration of Algorithmic information by Dembski shows that OOL and Darwinian scenarios frame the problem in a manner that will never find a solution because the approach is little better than the quest for square circles.

It is not I who is doing the rejecting. You are employing the typical dichotomy argument and trying to push it on me. I am willing to consider ID alternatives that you apparently are not.

Your black and white versus color example is a good vehicle to explain what I am talking about. ID is making the argument that black and white isn't good enough. Ok, but that doesn't mean we should reject the existence of all light. We need to dig deeper to understand, to gain KNOWLEDGE.

Joy has repeated multiple times her opinion that mainstream evolutionary thought appears to be limited to 3+1 dimensions. Bring in the concept of more dimensions and timeless communication (quarks), it is like turning black and white into color.

Dembski has mouthed the words "telic properties of nature" and other similar statements when the ID movement has needed non-religious cover. I have been frustrated in my attempts to explore this possibility because leaders in the ID movement, like you, want to reject anything the might result in a naturalistic explanation while simultaneously denying that ID is appealing to the supernatural and accusing people like me of being close minded.

God may exist (like fairies may exist). However, I consider it an illogical waste of time and energy to attempt to know what is unknowable (No one is wiser than Socrates). I am after useful knowledge. What does ID offer in this quest?

Provoking Thought

You're acknowledging differences between manuscripts, but not grappling with the possibility that the originals themselves were in error. That's a typical inerrantist view.

I wonder if the originals were in error. I wonder because it matters if what was written really came by inspiration of the Intelligent Designer or came from the imaginations of man. And what would inerrant really mean? I can point to mispellings and grammar errors in the new testament. If inerrant means no mispellings or grammar errors, I would have a hard time saying I'm an inerrantist.

The sad thing is that David Heddle explained this to you less than a month ago (here), and you ignored him.

Baloney!!! I responded to David and I did not ignore him. I pointed out

I thank you for responding, but the same body of literature that argues of very high speeds of light under Big Bang assumptions can, with moderate modifcation be seen to apply to Setterfield-Brown YEC cosmology.

and I invited him to discuss it further as I welcomed and valued his critical input. You on the other hand chose to ignore my open armed invitation to my brother David Heddle.

I come from a secular university with at least 3.5 scientists who publicly question the Big Bang, including one who publicly debated Bill Dembski. [James Trefil was my former professor, and debated Dembski. He is a Big Bang proponent, but has reservations (I count his as .5). He has also explored temporal spatial variations of light speed, and one of his PhD YEC students is now a tenured associate professor of physics at a secular university which I will not name.]

By the way, I made a spelling error, thank you for pointing it out. Which leads back to my question (with spelling corrected):

Where have I said the Bible will be shown errant if the speed of light is constant?

If the universe is young I will have even more reason to believe in ID than ever and that the Bible was inspired by God, and maybe some day an explanation for the grammar and spelling errors can be made. I will leave the debates of the meaning of "inerrant" to theologians. I'm more interested in what is historically true and what can be inferred from a straightforward interpretation of the physical artifacts we have in hand.

I find it a worthwhile inquiry to explore the possibility, because if the cosmos is young, God is closer and more involved in reality than we have ever imagined.

You may choose to believe the world is a pointless and meaningless accident and that everything you are living for will be erased when the 2nd law of thermodynamics takes its ultimate course. That is your choice, and I will respect that.