Some people who accept design design arguments for physics, but not for biology, nurture an aesthetic preference that our universe should be self-contained, with no exceptions to physical laws after its inception. The prospect of the active, continuing involvement of the designer rubs them the wrong way.
They picture something like a big hand flinging a Mars-sized orb at the nascent earth [in order to generate the moon — VJT], or pushing molecules around, and it offends their sensibilities. An artistic depiction of the multiverse. Image courtesy of Silver Spoon and Wikipedia. One enormous section of the warehouse contains all the universes that, if activated, would fail to produce life.
They would develop into universes consisting of just one big black hole, universes without stars, universes without atoms, or other abysmal failures. In a small wing of the huge warehouse are stored possible universes that have the right general laws and constants of nature for life. In one small room of the small wing are those universes that would develop life. Almost all of them, however, would not develop intelligent life. In one small closet of the small room of the small wing are placed possible universes that would actually develop intelligent life.
Behe argues that this selection amounts to an act of design, without the need for any interference. One afternoon the uberphysicist walks from his lab to the warehouse, passes by the huge collection of possible dead universes, strolls into the small wing, over to the small room, opens the small closet, and selects on the extremely rare universes that is set up to lead to intelligent life.
They were foreseen, and chosen from all the possible universes. Certainly that implies impressive power in the uberphysicist. But a being who can fine—tune the laws and constants of nature is immensely powerful. If the universe is purposely set up to produce intelligent life, I see no principled distinction between fine—tuning only its physics or, if necessary, fine—tuning whatever else is required. In either case the designer took all necessary steps to ensure life. The purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the intended playing out of the natural laws.
In her post, Is Darwinism a better explanation of life than Intelligent Design? This designer knows that of the trillions of possible universes, only one will unfold according to the Divine Plan and bring forth life and human beings, and yet such beings are her Divine Purpose. And so she causes to exist just that one in a trillion universe, in which each event unfolds as she intends. From within the universe, all we observe are natural causes, which, nonetheless, against all apparent odds, happen to result in us.
And so the only way of inferring the Designer is to apprehend just how many possible universes might have been created, and how few of those would have resulted in us. Nothing has occurred that is not possible given the rules we infer about this universe. But the probability that of all possible events, the ones that lead to intelligent life are those that occurred is infinitesimal, unless we posit that we were intended — that of all hypothetical universes in the Divine Mind, the one she chose to actuate was the one that would lead to us.
We will find nothing but apparently fortuitous chemistry in the formation of novel proteins — but such unlikely chemistry that trillions of alternative chemical reactions must have been considered and rejected as being not on the path to us. The protein hexokinase, with much smaller molecules of ATP and the simplest sugar, glucose, shown in the top right corner for comparison.
Image courtesy of Tim Vickers and Wikipedia.. In my recent post, The Edge of Evolution? Branko Kozulic, who, in his paper, Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species , points out that there are literally hundreds of chemically unique proteins in each and every species of living organism. Kozulic contends that the presence of not one but hundreds of chemically unique proteins in each species is an event beyond the reach of chance, and that each species must therefore be the result of intelligent planning.
In his paper, Kozulic listed various estimates of how much fine-tuning there is in a single protein molecule. Only a tiny proportion of all possible amino acid sequences is capable of folding and functioning as a protein within a cell. And remember, each species has hundreds of chemically unique proteins called singletons :. While scientists generally agree that only a minority of all possible protein sequences has the property to fold and create a stable 3D structure, the figure adequate to quantify that minority has been a subject of much debate.
On the other hand, Taylor et al. The proteins of unrelated sequences are as different as the proteins of random sequences [22, 81, 82] — and singletons per definition are exactly such unrelated proteins. The presence of a large number of unique genes in each species represents a new biological reality. Moreover, the singletons as a group appear to be the most distinctive constituent of all individuals of one species, because that group of singletons is lacking in all individuals of all other species.
Thus the appearance of hundreds of new proteins in each and every new species means that there is plenty of room for conscious selection by an Intelligent Designer, in the unfolding of the cosmos! Image courtesy of OpheliaO and Wikipedia. It is important to note here that neither Behe nor Liddle envisages a deterministic universe: both of them posit scenarios in which mutations occur. To a naive onlooker, these mutations might appear random, but in fact, the outcome of these mutations has been carefully planned by the Designer.
In other words, we are not dealing with a front-loading scenario here, in which the outcome of each and every mutation could in principle be predicted from a knowledge of the laws and initial conditions of the cosmos. Rather, what Behe and Liddle envisage is a Designer who selects not only the laws and initial conditions of the cosmos, but also the outcomes of indeterministic events , such as mutations. This is an important point, as physicist Dr.
In fact, the only kind of universe that could be pre-programmed to produce specific results without fail and without the need for any further input, would be one without any kind of feedback, real-world contingency or fractals — and hence, one devoid of organic life. All the Deity needs to do is select a cosmos with the history He intends, from among countless alternative possible universes. Design could be inferred from the extreme rarity of possible universes that lead to intelligent life:. Liddle of being an Intelligent Design theorist for one moment, of course!
Nevertheless, the scenario she proposes should allay any concerns that people living in a cosmos that was not subject to acts of Divine intervention could never infer the existence of a Designer. In response, I would argue that an act of selection by an Intelligent Designer need not violate quantum randomness, because a selection can be random at the micro level, but non-random at the macro level.
The following two rows of digits will serve to illustrate my point. The above two rows of digits were created by a random number generator. Now suppose I impose the macro requirement: keep the columns whose sum equals 1, and discard the rest. I now have:. Each row is still random, but I have imposed a non-random macro-level constraint. Likewise, when the Designer makes a choice of which world to create from among various possible worlds, there is no violation of quantum randomness at the microscopic level.
It seems to me that the question of whether the scenario proposed by Behe and Liddle is viable or not ultimately hinges on the philosophical question of whether this universe would still be the same individual universe, if its history were different. Disagreement exists as to whether these possible worlds are concrete or merely abstract. But the question of how these worlds should be individuated is a vexed one.
It makes sense to say that this world could have been different from the way it is; consequently, not every feature of this world can be essential to it. The question then boils down to this: which features of the cosmos we live in are part-and-parcel of its individual identity? That, in turn, would seem to imply that when God selects a particular universe to create, God must select one whose history is specified too — at least, up until the arrival of intelligent beings like ourselves, who are capable of making additional specifications by their acts of free choice.
But this objection presupposes that mutations occur deterministically. If mutations are indeterministic on the physical level, then there is nothing, in the absence of a Designer, which guarantees that the course of evolution will proceed as it does. We are very fortunate that evolution did not get stuck in a cul-de-sac , at a time when the only organisms on Earth were one-celled bacteria. If that had happened, we would not be here today. The fact that we live on a planet where mutations lead to increasing diversity and complexity, over billions of years, requires an explanation, and the only satisfactory one is: design.
It is to be hoped that he will reconsider his views. Liddle for having demonstrated that belief in an active Designer does not necessarily entail belief in an interventionist Designer. Felsenstein is posting. We can analyze his assertion by first seeing illustrations provided to us in the world of computer Genetic Algorithms. We could in theory just front load the random number generator with the right mutations and thus the system short cuts its way to the target solution in no time.
In like manner, a designer could frontload in a Deistic sort of way mutation.
Is Our Universe Ruled by Artificial Intelligence?
But there are other things in nature that help us to look at what random ought to look like. See: Randomness by Design by Bill Dembski. Suppose things were Deistically front loaded, the Designer could still give us clues in nature as to the way real randomness behaves. So let us suppose that biology had no intervention but was wound up like a clock, could we detect design? Yes if we have the auxiliary provision that the observers have access to how randomness ought to behave. That is, we will have access to building DNA string and randomly mutating them and seeing how quickly we come up with new DNA that can build novel proteins.
We can then extrapolate whether in geological time such a process will create what we see today. Thus under the Deist model, design could still be detected because it would be at variance with other behaviors deemed to be random, i. We would be able to deduce that the mutation in evolution were not consistent with the behavior of what we see in our lab experiments.
Hence, in terms of the contrast with what we see in out labs and our theories, the mutations would in no way look ordinary. If Dr. Felsenstein amended his claim to this it would be acceptable:. But mutation would not look at all ordinary. See: Physics has rescued religion. Lucky, Ex. Empirical confirmation of this long suspected relationship between entropy and information was achieved in In , Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation.
- Memoirs of a Dervish: Sufis, Mystics and the Sixties.
- Is Our Universe Ruled by Artificial Intelligence? - Universe Today.
- Post navigation?
- 35 Slow Cooker Christmas Recipes - Happy Holiday Meals for Your Slow Cooker.
Moleular Biophysics — Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: — Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. And please note that this thermodynamic disequilibrium of the bacterium is in severe disconnect with the environment.
To see it as it really is it would be much more appropriate to see it as if the cell were a towering skyscraper of thermodynamic disequilibrium just floating on a ocean of relative thermodynamic equilibrium with no real foundation to explain to us what is really holding that skyscraper up nor to explain to us how it got there. As to incrementally changing a genome, I simply do not see a way around the extreme integrated complexity of a genome as to changing it incrementally:. The genome dwarfs all of the computer information technology that man has developed. So I think that it is very problematic to imagine how you can achieve that through random changes in a code.
I mean really why bother? Would a computer programmer try to change one code into another code incrementally bit by bit to design a new program and system or would he design a new system for a new purpose top down? And just why would we expect a designer of life to not intervene in the history of that life? It is possible in principle that design is frontloaded that is never detected i.
Sal 1, thanks much for the link to the Dembski article. Low uncertainty effectively eliminates chance at some reasonable threshold. Thanks again. That is one route. The example in the Siding with Mathgrrl thread of coins heads is an example of a low algorithmic entropy string with a high shannon entropy that can yield a design inference since naturally occuring strings have high algorithmic entropy. It is not a universal method — only works in some contexts.
The resulting new rows have been determined by our selection process.
- Is the Intelligent Designer an interventionist? A reply to Felsenstein and Liddle.
- Embedded Systems Circuits and Programming.
- The Heartland.
- Related Stories.
- The Worth of a Child;
- Sermons 2008.
- Make Money Working From Home.
Now was that selection process applied after the numbers were first randomly generated? In that case, we are intervening. Were they selected before the numbers were randomly generated? Then we are pre-determining, which is really just another way of saying determining. Or was the selection process part of the same system that also randomly generated the numbers? In that, we have natural selection. In my opinion, Behe, Liddle, and now you have failed to show that a supernatural being could design at the micro-level in an indeterministic universe in some way besides through intervention.
But so what? Robin Collins already showed that intervention at the quantum level would not be a violation of Conservation Laws. ID however asserts that emergence of life is inconsistent with the statistics that we see in the lab and the statistics predicted by accepted physics and chemistry. Further, Trevors and Abel demonstrated that the emergence of life via random chance would be inconsistent with any future discovery of physics and chemistry since information systems, by their nature, must have features that transcend physical and chemcial law, and can only exist in environments that make them possible but simultaneously improbable.
The question of interventionism is formally separate and would not be a valid inference from purely design detection methods. Actually interventionism is a theological speculation and label.
- The Rest is Weight (UQP Short Fiction)!
- Cloning Around.
- Combat Darkness with Joyful Worship: Stories from Spiritual Java.
- Mr. Scarboroughs Family?
What do I mean. If God was determined for us to be shocked and surprised is that shocking event an intervention or not? Determinism depends on the observer. What looks determined to one like the creator of a random number generator is random to another observer. So is a predestined miracle an intervention or not? Interventionism cannot be scientifically demonstrated, what can be demonstrated is when something violates what we presume is normal behavior. Whether a violoation of the ordinary is a miracle or intervention is a matter of philosophical debate.
Whether God was behind such atypical events is a theological question, the scientific question is if we are dealing with something that inconsistent with law and chance chance as in the way we perceive chance. I just started Howard J. Oh and he uses extra-natural, from outside nature and supernatural, having power over nature. In our scheme, especially a front-loading scheme, the mutations are not ordinary.
Exploring intelligent design language - netolipuzu.cf
Like it or not, miracles are very likely in the biblical scenario of creation. I seriously doubt the Designer cares one little iota about whether He intervened or did not intervene. So Romans , just those 2 verses alone, shows this is not a possibility IF the Creator is the God of the Bible, which almost all of us believe. Possible in principle? Actually and truly possible? No because the Designer says that is not possible. This is the problem with ID.
Most IDers believe the Designer is God, but they are not allowed to say that. But, if we deny the Word of God in making our point, has anything worthwhile really been accomplished? The way you are framing your argument for truth especially for unbelievers and Doubting Christians is using the Bible being true as a starting assumption.
That is actually unbiblical. Look at Acts Chapter The reason front loading is considered, is that even YECs who are top biologists see it. It is exactly the way you have framed your argument that almost made me leave the church 10 years ago. Why is that? If you read John , it might become apparent that Jesus expected that some people would come to Christian faith who did not at first believe His message. Start off with the premise the Bible is true. God does not expect unbelievers and doubting Thomases to assume the Bible is true. Even YECs are front loaders to some extent.
Any time we can demonstrate that ID is not the same as creationism, we also demonstrate that Darwinists are willing to continue spreading falsehoods even after it is repeatedly pointed out they are spreading falsehoods. But, before you go around accusing others of being unbiblical.
In light of the Acts 17 and John , you might reconsider whether your approach to defending creationist claims is Biblical. A human designer certainly intervenes to design things. The intervention starts in his brain, at the consciousness-brain interface, when conscious representations of will modify neuronal activities.
I suppose we can all agree that no natural law of physics is violated when one of us designs something. Well, he still needs a consciousness-matter interface, if he is to design anything. But the process is essentially the same. I believe we should. In no way is it essentially different from the intervention of humans in human design. How does the consciousness-matter interface work? But it certainly works very well in human brains.
So, that is a perfectly reasonable scientific problem, quite open to inquiry. Personally, I believe that the answer should be sought at quantum level. Can other kinds of theories front-loading, or simply universe-choosing, or any other variety really explain the appearance of dFSCI in biological beings?
In my opinion, absolutely not. So, I stick to an interventionist designer for biological beings, in the sense already explained. But remember, no physical laws, as far as we know, need be violated in the process. I agree. The first intervention is only more difficult to prove, at present. Luckily, biology is a more realistic discipline compared to astrophysics!
Thank you for your comment. I have absolutely no philosophical or theological problem with the idea of Divine intervention in the history of life on Earth. I argued that this combined micro-level randomness with macro-level design, without the need for intervention. In reply, you wrote:. I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that if the selection process was applied after the numbers were randomly generated, then we are intervening.
That would only apply if the numbers were generated in the same world. But what about this scenario? Every time a probabilistic event occurs, there are several different ways that it might turn out. Consider these outcomes as different possible futures. If we combine the outcomes, we have a large number of possible futures. A straightforward example to consider here might be two dice being rolled together in a casino.
Here, there are 36 possible outcomes. Now imagine the Designer selecting, from among these 36 possible futures, one in which the numbers on the two dice add up to 8 e. And so on. Could the Designer keep making these macro-level selections while preserving the randomness of each individual die, over the course of time? Clearly, yes: the macro-level requirement for the combined total imposes no bias or constraint on the numbers displayed on the individual dice. What the Designer does is choose from among various possible futures.
An intervention alters what is already there; what the Designer is doing is choosing from alternative possibilities that are not yet realized. In the process of making selections of this sort, the Designer is continually specifying the character of this world. If we use a single-letter subscript to denote the selection made at a time t, and another single-letter subscript to denote the next selection, we can see that over the course of time, the world we live in can be characterized by lots and lots of subscripts.
What Professor Behe and Dr. Liddle are apparently arguing is that the identity of this world as distinct from other worlds with the same laws and initial conditions can be expressed in terms of the subscripts which characterize it. Evolution by design, as in organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design. Also that kick-start could include multiple populations, including eukaryotes. In the case of a human person making a choice to act, which activates some neurons in their brains and thereby causes a bodily movement e.
We might conceive of this interaction as a form of editing. With God, on the other hand, it is different. God did create the world, and does maintain in existence. In making His selections, God is not interacting with a pre-existing object, but rather, making choices which give this world its essential character and make it this world, if Behe and Liddle are right. For Alan to criticize your claim, he must also criticize Darwin. And although it cannot be scientifically established at the present time that the Intelligent Designer is God, philosophy can tell us that in the end, it must be a personal God.
I also believe that miracles are an even better argument for the existence of God, and I believe that they have happened in the past, as the Bible says. When it comes to Genesis , however, I am not sure how to interpret these chapters, so I proceed very carefully here. In full respect of your opinion, I think I disagree. My approach to the design theory is completely empirical.
If God interacts or not with His universe is maybe a philosophical point and even there I certainly believe He does , but here the problem is not God. The problem is that we see dFSCI, original functional information, emerging in the course of natural history. That happens in space and time, inside the universe.
And it violates the probabilistic laws not the physical laws not one, but thousands of times. Exactly like human design, and only human design, continuously violates those probabilistic laws because of our conscious intervention upon matter. This is an empirical problem, and it requires an empirical solution. This happens in our world, and a conscious intervention is the only credible explanation. That is intervention all the way. Consciousness interacts with matter every day.
It is not even a miracle. OOL, eukaryotes, multicellular beings, the Ediacara explosion, the Cambrian explosion, each new body plan, each new species, each new protein domain, each new protein network, and so on. In addition, your personal data will be transferred to other Bonnier offices where necessary for the performance or conclusion of our contractual obligations to you or for your benefit. Transfers of personally-identifying information may also be made where necessary for the establishment, exercise, or defense of legal claims.
We do not transfer personal information internationally. Bonnier will only share your sensitive personal information with outside companies or individuals in any of the following limited circumstances:. We may also use, transfer, sell, and share aggregated, anonymous data about our users for any legal purpose, such as analyzing usage trends and seeking compatible advertisers and partners.
In no event will this aggregated data contain any information that could be used to identify individual users of our products or services. We take appropriate physical, electronic, and procedural measures to safeguard and protect your personal information. We use a variety of security measures, including encryption and authentication, to maintain the confidentiality of your personal information.
We store your personal information on systems behind firewalls that are only accessible to a limited number of persons, each of whom is required to keep the information confidential. We also take appropriate measures to secure the transmission of sensitive personal information from your computer to the Company's computers. When you transmit sensitive personal information to us, like credit card information, we offer the use of a secure connection to our servers. To the extent you select the secure connection method or your browser supports such functionality, all credit card account information that you supply is transmitted via secure encryption technology.
These individuals are bound by confidentiality obligations and may be subject to discipline, including termination and criminal prosecution, if they fail to meet these obligations. Bonnier only collects personal information that is relevant to the purposes for which it will be used.
Though we do take appropriate steps to review and update the information that we store to ensure that it is accurate, complete, and current, we also depend on you to update or correct your personal information when necessary. You may correct or delete any or all of the personal information you have provided to us at any time. Many of our websites provide means to review and update the personal information that you have provided on that website. To inquire about personally identifiable information that Bonnier has collected about you, or about other ways to correct factual errors in that information, please send us an e-mail at privacy bonniercorp.
Note: Do not use this email address to send questions about your subscription. To protect your privacy and security, we will take reasonable steps to help verify your identity before granting access or making corrections. We will decline to process requests where we cannot verify the identity of the requester.
We may also decline to process requests that are automated, repetitive, systematic, or impractical, or that might jeopardize the privacy of others. In some limited circumstances, such as to resolve disputes, troubleshoot problems, and enforce our policies, we may retain some of information that you have requested us to remove. Therefore, you should not expect that all of your personal information will be completely removed from our databases in response to your requests. We only use the information we collect for purposes consistent with this policy. If we propose to use your personal information for purposes beyond that explained in this policy, we will provide appropriate notice before doing so and we will provide you with the means to opt out of those uses.
We will not use your sensitive personal information for any purposes other than those described in this Policy unless we have obtained your consent. If you prefer not to receive e-mail communications from other companies, you may choose to remove yourself from any e-mail lists that we provide to third parties for marketing purposes by sending us an e-mail at emailoptout bonniercorp.
You will still receive information from Bonnier and its various brands, but we will not share your address information with anyone else. If you prefer not to receive postal communication from other companies, you may choose to remove yourself from any postal mailing lists that we provide to third parties for marketing purposes by sending us an e-mail at emailoptout bonniercorp. Box , Harlan, IA We only want to communicate with you if you want to hear from us. If you prefer not to be contacted at all, you may opt out of receiving any communications from us at any time by notifying us at emailoptout bonniercorp.
You may also notify us by sending mail to the following address:. In all requests, please tell us what communications you would like to opt out of, what means we have been using to contact you such as your e-mail or postal address , the date of your request, and a way to reach you in case we need to personally contact you in an effort to comply with your request. We reserve the right to send you certain communications, such as technical alerts, without offering you the opportunity to opt out of receiving them.
Bonnier may collect information such as the type of browser you use, your operating system, your IP address, the type of device you are using to access the site, and the domain name of your Internet Service Provider. This information, by itself, does not permit individual identification, meaning that you will remain anonymous. However, if you elect to provide us with personally-identifying information during your visit, that information may be linked to your IP address, or to your email address where we may have that on file through other Bonnier Corp.
Some of the features and services of Bonnier websites may not operate properly if your cookies are disabled. Cookies, by themselves, do not provide us with any personally-identifying information. On our websites, we may also use tiny graphic images called pixel tags, web beacons, or clear gifs. These tiny images help us to analyze our users' online behavior and collect other data, such as page views or advertising responses. Pixel tags also allow us to send you email in a format that you can read, and let us know when you have opened an email message from us.
To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit www.
Knitted Strain Sensors: Impact of Design Parameters on Sensing Properties