Log in

No account? Create an account
More fun with intelligent design proponents. - CERisE's Testing for L

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile

July 17th, 2004

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
12:26 pm - More fun with intelligent design proponents.
In response to an level_head posting about Intelligent Design, I posted a reply to someone who professes a belief in the "scientific" theory of creationism:

Sure, let's run with this. Perhaps you'd care to explain away the contradiction in the universe being created within 7 days, yet time was created on the 4th day. This is trivial to cite from a source text of your theory.

Or we can go double or nothing and you can attempt to show what attendees of the DAIC conference of 2000 at Concordia University could not:

1) The explanation of Information Theory given by Dembski, Behe, and others states that information tends to follow a "trickle-down" model. Simply put, a watch requires a designer. The designer of that watch possesses the information necessary to create that watch, while the watch possesses only a subset of that information.
2) Same explanation states that if an object shows Specified Irreducible Complexity (hereafter SIC), then it can be shown to have been designed by an intelligent designer.
3) Using similar logic to Paley, it is theorized that an Intelligent Designer (hereafter ID) in the sense of a Prime Mover exists and is the source of all information.

Explain: Does the ID show SIC?
If yes, then prove that the ID is not designed and therefore an exception to point 2.

If no, then explain the violation of the explanation of information theory in point 1. Full answers will prove that while the ID can design something with a large amount of SIC, evolution (a proven algorithmic process) can not.

(1 comment | Leave a comment)


(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
Date:July 17th, 2004 04:44 pm (UTC)
Whether or not the ID is designed is the point of the contradiction. If you accept that the ID is designed, then it isn't the Prime Mover; the ultimate designer if you will. Because information theory tells us that information trickles down, you must assume that the designer of the ID has a greater amount of information, and therefore, a greater amount of SIC.

If you take the other route (that the ID doesn't display SIC), then it contradicts information theory (which, by the way, comes from an unrelated science).

The point is that one of the foundations of Intelligent Design (that SIC is proof that it was designed) is a theory which results in a contradiction.

SIC isn't quantifiable, per se. It's more of an observable quality. In Darwin's Black Box, Behe claims that biochemical reactions in the eye couldn't have served as an evolutionary advantage in smaller forms of that reaction. As a result, they must have come about at once; they're irreducible. Those reactions serve a specific task. Therefore, they are an example of Specified Irreducible Complexity.

> Go to Top