ID evolution at Scientific American

In the latest issue of Sci Am there is an article by Neil Shubin ("This Old Body") that uses an example of ID evolution -- as an example of Darwinian(?!) evolution. Both the old laboratory (less evolved) and the new lab (more evolved) are the product of intelligent design. This is known as "Berra's Blunder." In the case of Berra's example, both old corvettes (less evolved) and new corvettes (more evolved) are the product of intelligent design. This is all the more surprising given that the entire issue seems dedicated to attacking ID and glorifying Darwin. (See perhaps "Creationists' Latest Tricks.")

Fundamentalism - A Dangerous Delusion

"If there is a dangerous delusion in the world, it is not so much moderate religion, as Dawkins would have it, but fundamentalism in all its forms — ideological, scientific and religious — as the imposition of dogma that brooks neither doubt nor respect for disagreement." - John Cornwell

While religious fundamentalism is indeed dangerous, it is to a large extent uncloaked and restrained/defused in the western world. Materialist fundamentalism however is not yet uncloaked and finds enormous support in the global institutions of science and global secular media. Militant desecrationist (fundamentalist) atheists such as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are presently revered in the scientific world. My concern here is not about atheism (I have many friends and relatives who are atheists) but fundamentalism of all kinds. It is fundamentalism that "brooks neither doubt nor respect for disagreement" that is the real danger for modern civilization.
....

My "Correlational Improbability" proposal

"Correlational Improbability"- July 31/08 is my way of mathematically quantifying the second Dembskian notion of "an independently given, detachable pattern."

From ResearchID.org:Re - “Specified Complexity”:"The first component is the criterion of complexity or improbability. The second is the criterion of specificity, which is an independently given, detachable pattern."

The (often critiqued) second component "specificity" is mathematically quantifiable as a correlational improbability. Multiplying this improbability by the initial improbability (the first component) gives the pertinent “hyper-hyperfinite” or “trans-hyperfinite” internal information/improbability figure for any given complex functional, pseudo-platonic(maintained) system. Note that the first component of “improbability” is itself a hyperfinite number below the universal probability bound. See-- Specified_Complexity at ISCID.

Note added Sept 24/08: I have initiated a separate thread at ISCID in order to discuss this topic.

The God Crane

Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet claim that “God” is a "skyhook" (not a "crane") and that "God" is subsequently unscientific. For someone like me however this argument has no force because "God" as I see it/him/her is indeed "a crane." The iterating God function evolves and becomes -- through each cycle -- more and more functionally complex. The process is called "telic recursion." God and the universe co-evolved from a simple initial state devoid of complexity. Awareness rides along and learns (increases in complexity) through every iteration/cycle. Ideas are projected outward to become "physical" and then success and/failure (of these projections) is assessed and learned from. With this new information (new functional complexity) in hand the cycle begins again.

Some Good News Re - PZ Myers and Orthodox Science?

In April of 2005 Universty of Minnesota biologist, PZ Myers pubished the following statement in response to a readers call to "tone down the (anti ID) rhetoric"..

“I say it is time for scientists to break out the brass knuckles and steel toed boots and hammer (PZ's emphasis, not mine) on the lunatics and idiots.”

PZ's anti-ID statement used to be found HERE but it is now missing. I take this as a good sign. The reason that this troubled me is that in the following year 2006 Nature Magazine (possibly the worlds #1 science magazine) voted PZ's blog "Pharyngula" (where the comment appeared) the number one science blog in the entire world! This convinced me that violence and/or threats of violence are OK with the scientific community just as long they are directed at people like me (I.E. people who doubt Darwinian macro-evolution and propose intelligent design instead). This chain of events came as quite a shock to me. I expected much better from orthodox science. Hopefully we are now seeing orthodox science backing down from such threats.

My Hockey Anthem "Electric Ice."

What I am dealing with (in music composition and production) is the translation of musical information (in my mind) into a finished musical form (above). To this end I have developed personal musical systems that are both energy efficient and info-efficient.

Listen at the CBC "Anthem Challenge" web site.

Note Added: Sept 15/08 My anthem was the CBC's "featured anthem" over this last weekend. Thanks for listening everyone!

The CBC "Anthem Challenge" Homepage

Three Explanatory Slides and "The Randomness Channel"

When you are passionate about ID science and are subsequently expelled/driven from orthodox science, you can wind up camping in the woods (as I did). Unable to afford cable TV, you get whatever TV channels you can pick up. Sometimes it is only "The Randomness Channel" IE., "snow" or "no signal." Luckily "randomness" is at the core of a very famous theory of science -- Darwinian Evolution. After spending many years in the woods watching the "Randomness Channel" I was able to develop a much better understanding of randomness and its (cough) "creative potential."




Of course famous Darwinists like Richard Dawkins would protest saying that while randomness is indeed random, Darwin's "natural selection" -- that selectively weeds out the unfit -- is not random at all! Luckily, I was able to purchase some rose colored glasses for 50 cents -- thereby weeding out the "un-fit" -- the "un-red" -- and thus "improving" my TV viewing experience with Darwinian non-randomness.

Then one day, while clicking randomly though various randomness channels I suddenly recieved a COMUNICATION from a strange ALIEN world called "Canada"(!?!). This was not randomness!(slide #1) Nor was this selectively filtered randomness!(slide #2) This surely was an intelligently designed SIGNAL! To this day, no-one in orthodox science believes me. They consider selectively filtered random variations (random mutation random genetic drift, random gene duplication, random environmental hits {randomizations} etc..) to be a perfectly sufficient explanation for such patterns! While Darwin's filtered randomness (slides #1 and #2) can explain some superficial things (like shifts in moth colouration or shifts in finch beak sizes -- all in pre-existing organisms {pre-existing signals}) it cannot explain the appearance de novo of specified complexity from star base Canada!!

Toward a Free and Democratic Post-Darwinian Enlightenment

I have been invited to speak at The Mackie House in Vernon, BC Canada on May 13th at 7:00 PM. The title of my talk is "Toward a Free and Democratic Post-Darwinian Enlightenment." Seating is limited, so reservations are required.

Expelled -- The Movie April 18th

Expelled the movie is coming out in USA April 18th. I hope everyone enjoys it.

The “Spaghetti Man” (formerly “Straw Man”) Fallacy of Logical Argumentation

Spaghetti Design (SD) versus Intelligent Design (ID)

There is no evidence whatsoever of Spaghetti ever designing anything (nor is there any evidence of spaghetti having any ability to take flight).

On the other hand..

There exists a massive body of evidence of intelligence designing things. (This very document you are now reading was designed {written/composed} by an intelligence {myself}. It was not written by spaghetti {flying or otherwise).

The purpose of "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" (http://www.venganza.org/) crusade is to ridicule ID science (for which there is a massive body of evidence) by pretending it to be equivalent to SD (for which there is no evidence of any kind). By failing to address actual ID arguments and by offering only a disanalogous "straw man/spaghetti man" argument, the proponents of FSM are committing a fallacy of logical argumentation – The classic Spaghetti Man Fallacy.

On to our next great Dawkinian challenge;

Orbiting Teapot Design (OTD) versus Intelligent Design (ID)… No evidence of teapots designing anything …Spaghetti Man Fallacy of logical argumentation.

And another…

Pink Unicorn Design (PUD) versus Intelligent Design (ID)… No evidence of pink unicorns designing anything… No evidence of pink unicorns period. Spaghetti Man Fallacy of logical argumentation.

And another…

Roman Mythological Character Design RMCD (Zeus Design {ZD}) versus Intelligent Design (ID). No evidence of Zeus designing anything…No evidence of Zeus. Spaghetti Man Fallacy of logical argumentation…

Funny New Dawkins Rap Video

HA!

It's the New Year and time to Re-start Science

In the book "The End of Science" chapter #8 "End of Chaoplexity" John Horgan writes..

"Definitions of complexity typically draw upon thermodynamics, information theory and computer science and involve concepts such as entropy, randomness and information -- which themselves have proved to be notoriously slippery terms."

Note that for John Horgan -- the science writer -- and apparently all others that he knows in science, there exists a scientific problem of complexity being "notoriously slippery."

"..all definitions of complexity have drawbacks. For example algorithmic information theory (Chaitin et al) holds that the complexity of a system can be represented by the shortest computer program describing it. But according to this criterion, a text created by a team of typing monkeys is more complex because it is more random and therefore less compressible -- than Finnegans Wake"

The solution of course is very simple. The "typing monkeys" are merely an anthropomorphisation of "randomness." "Randomness" is merely a uniform probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes. That is to say, if the probability of your slot machine's jackpot configuration (say, three lemons) is greater (or less) than the other configurations(say, two cherries and a banana) then its internal probability is distributed non-uniformly -- it is skewed/biased and it is subsequently non-random.

Horgan's "text" being "created by a team of typing monkeys" is but uniformly distributed, unspecified gibberish wherein the complexity here is an attribute of the complex (alphabet) system -- not an attribute of randomness! Randomness is by definition uniform and subsequently non-complex. "Finnegans Wake" on the other hand is specified, non-random and does not conform to a uniform distribution of letters.

Even if one were to remove all the redundancy from "Finnegans Wake," reducing it to a K-complex skeleton code, it still would not be the least bit random because any such "Finnegans Wake" is utterly specific and randomness is devoid of specifications. Any such Finnegans Wake code, non-randomly specifies Finnegans Wake -- IE it is a specific, non-random list of the specifications/instructions needed to produce the specific Finnegan's Wake text.

While the letter "A" is indeed specific, randomness is not. While letter and number systems are themselves complex and specified -- randomness is not.

Randomness is the absence of order, the absence of complexity, the absence of specifications and the absence of information. When expressed in a complex system, randomness appears as uniformly distributed noise or "gibberish." John Horgan bemoans the "end of science" -- not because science is ending and no more answers are possible -- but because he is talking to the wrong scientists -- scientists who worship randomness. For those who don't worship randomness, "complexity" is not the least bit "slippery."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Note added Jan 3/08. I thoroughly enjoyed reading "The End of Science." John Horgan is a very entertaining writer and I found the subjects he addresed therein to be extremely interesting. -WB