http://www.vimeo.com/1775160

Well who's first?

http://ouroboros.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/venn.jpg

http://www.vimeo.com/1775160

Well who's first?
Why do you think he makes a good point?

Aight, I'll bite.

He seems to make sense until 4:40 where he defines the intelligence hypothesis as "An attribute that distinguises intelligence from mindless natural processes is the ability of intelligence to produce effects requiring significant levels of functional information".
The presence of functional information does not require intelligence.

The rest of his talk rests on this (false) definition. If he is correct, it is not for these reasons.
I stopped watching at 17:00. If he has a point, he is not in much of a hurry to make it.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/onion10-5.jpg

Intelligent design: an effect requiring a mind to produce.

Alternative

Mindless natural processes

The speaker rules out a third option as "irrational"

I disagree, from an evolutionary standpoint, processes and behaviours which are effective will have a natural bias to become prevalent and continued.

Photosynthesis for example:

Intelligent design or Mindless natural process?

I don't think "God" taught plants to absorb sunlight for nutrients, I also don't think it was mindless or random.

What if plants evolved and changed to suit their environments, and absorbing sunlight for food was the most efficient means of survival?

Is that far-fetched?

This is pseudo science at best, he completely disregards the theory of evolution and has created his own (heavily flawed) scientific method to prove the existence of a god?

I like fundamental creationist Christians better, this guy is the worst mix of learned and insane.

Da Pope, When I made an offensive thread, at least I made an argument, not just linked to a video.

What do you think about the video?

What if plants evolved and changed to suit their environments, and absorbing sunlight for food was the most efficient means of survival?

Is that far-fetched?

No, that sounds like the theory that has the most (any) evidence to support it. However, technically, that is a mindless (not thought-based) natural (as opposed to, um...magic) process. Whilst his description is literally true, his choice of language is far from value-neutral. The implication is that "mindless"="stupid". It's the kind of cheap shot you try for when you don't actually have anything of substance to say.

Hi y'all, yes sorry for not commenting on the video in the OP (F even felt fit to infarc me for lack of info)

I'm not sure if he is making any sense at all. I know there are a few scietisits (and at least one mathematician) here abouts, so my intention was to get a proper break down of his argument from a scientic perspective.

A few years ago I did a course on Genetic Algolrhythms (GA) (sp?) and his linking the fitness function to biology in the way he did was interesting but I think flawed. Especially flawed when he said that fitness in evolutionary theory was not understood but I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I couldnt claim to know for sure. It was my understanding that GAs got the idea of fitness from evolutionary biology in the first place, so trhat was confusing.

I should point out that I am not adverse to the idea of intelligent design but even if such a thing did happen, I'm not convinced Jesus's dad had anything to do with it. But to be fair he did clarify that he wasnt claiming God© did it.

The maths surrounding the probablity of protien developement lost me so if anyone can be bothered, please do explain what the **** he was talking about. Did he miss the class about Monte Carlo simulations?

Also something I thought might be worth discussng was his opinion that science and philosophy should be seperate. Anybody agree with that?

One more thing. The idea that biology could be analysed from the premise that it was designed, as opposed to the premise that it just happened. My personal take is that good science should not suppose anything until it has had a good look at the data. But what if the data is telling some people that biology was designed and they then go back and test this hypothosis and they proove it a workable one? Is that a scientific way to proceed?

I'm not sure if he is making any sense at all...The maths surrounding the probablity of protien developement lost me so if anyone can be bothered, please do explain what the **** he was talking about. Did he miss the class about Monte Carlo simulations?

Generally, when someone has something to say, they say it as clearly as they can. Maybe he doesn't want his argument understood. He's using the math to obscure his reasoning rather than to support his argument.


Also something I thought might be worth discussng was his opinion that science and philosophy should be seperate. Anybody agree with that?

Vehemently not. Philosophy literally means, "love of knowledge". How can you separate the love of knowledge from the most useful and reliable method of obtaining it?


One more thing. The idea that biology could be analysed from the premise that it was designed, as opposed to the premise that it just happened. My personal take is that good science should not suppose anything until it has had a good look at the data. But what if the data is telling some people that biology was designed and they then go back and test this hypothosis and they proove it a workable one? Is that a scientific way to proceed?

What, the intelligent design crew doing actual research, as opposed to sellectively misrepresenting and abusing the research of others? It's a good question. After all, increased understanding in the sciences has usually led to improved applications based on more accurate models of the universe. If intelligent design is onto something then their model of biology should be more accurate than anyone else's and we can expect revolutionary advances in genetics to follow. Or maybe not.

Intelligent design really isn't specific enough about it's claims to be taken seriously as science. For example, who or what did the designing? By what mechanism did this intelligence effect its design? At the moment, all they have is, "This is extremely unlikely, therefore it must have been done by magic."

Define intelligence.... then you can maybe find that evolution is intelligent design. Depends on the definition of intelligence of course.

Generally, when someone has something to say, they say it as clearly as they can. Maybe he doesn't want his argument understood. He's using the math to obscure his reasoning rather than to support his argument. .

IS that like saying "I dont understand the maths"?




Vehemently not. Philosophy literally means, "love of knowledge". How can you separate the love of knowledge from the most useful and reliable method of obtaining it?

So you would be OK for philosophical guidelines?


Intelligent design really isn't specific enough about it's claims to be taken seriously as science. For example, who or what did the designing? By what mechanism did this intelligence effect its design? At the moment, all they have is, "This is extremely unlikely, therefore it must have been done by magic."

Well to fair be wasnt ascribing a philosophical argument as to the designer, just that as far as his sums are concerned there is a very high likelyhood that life was designed by some intelligence. He never claims to know what that is, he makes that pretty clear.

Is that where the seperation between philosophy/theology and science comes in?

Define intelligence.... then you can maybe find that evolution is intelligent design. Depends on the definition of intelligence of course.

What do you make of the presenters definition?

Intelligence to me implies some ability to plan and/or problem solve.

IS that like saying "I dont understand the maths"?

I sure as hell didn't.



as his sums are concerned there is a very high likelyhood that life was designed by some intelligence. He never claims to know what that is, he makes that pretty clear.


I agree with Nicko, Just because we cant explain something doesn't mean it was magic / god.

Pretending that the evolutionary theory doesn't exist and giving no credit to natural selection is no proof of intelligent design.


then you can maybe find that evolution is intelligent design.

QFT

Besides, if there was something/someone intelligent enough to create humans and human intelligence. morality and reason, why do the strong oppress the weak and humans suffer?

I sure as hell didn't.

Me neither


I agree with Nicko, Just because we cant explain something doesn't mean it was magic / god.

Agreed but he isnt making that point. He quite clearly points that out.


Pretending that the evolutionary theory doesn't exist and giving no credit to natural selection is no proof of intelligent design.

He doesnt actually say that does he? His claim is that it isnt understood.


Besides, if there was something/someone intelligent enough to create humans and human intelligence. morality and reason, why do the strong oppress the weak and humans suffer?

Isnt that a philosophical argument and not a scientific one?

Hi y'all, yes sorry for not commenting on the video in the OP (F even felt fit to infarc me for lack of info)

Yes, a one point expiring infraction, with a link to the rule.