Just look at ‘em! (E.g., the bacterial cilium: there are “dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts,” Behe writes.)”

I was speaking more of evidence for an advanced technology sometime in the past that would be able to genetically engineer these “design” features.

“I think you’re wrong here. ID is not manifested via any mechanistic process. There is no precise algorithm to solve inventive problems or to push creative advance. Creativity is the opposite of following rules.”

I’m wrong a lot but my understanding is that Dembski uses the elimination of mechanistic processes (chance and contingency) to determine design. I can’t see where this would be satisfying to detect design. Without a defined process or event for design the default should be “don’t know”. And why wouldn’t creativity be constrained by the architecture of the human brain?

“Well, it is a persecuted paradigm. It’ll take it a few years to attract younger scientists.”

More useless than persecuted. There aren’t even any discrete hypotheses to test, let alone a coherent theory.

Just look at ‘em! (E.g., the bacterial cilium: there are “dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts,” Behe writes.)

> My reading of it is that Dembski’s probability calculations to detect specified complexity are based on known (or what he knows, anyway) natural mechanisms.

I think you’re wrong here. ID is not manifested via any mechanistic process. There is no precise algorithm to solve inventive problems or to push creative advance. Creativity is the opposite of following rules.

> Is that the super-secret research program?

Well, it is a persecuted paradigm. It’ll take it a few years to attract younger scientists.

I do. Since they replicate it seems more likely that they are self organizing systems capable of increased complexity. The analogy to human based technology still doesn’t hold. Where is the evidence of advanced technology?

“ID defines intelligence as the ability to create information that is contingent, specified, and complex. Both human and biological technology exhibit specified complexity, so our first definition works well enough.”

Then intelligence is dependent on the definitions of information, specificity, contingency (which I thought referred to natural “laws” ala Dembski), and complexity. My reading of it is that Dembski’s probability calculations to detect specified complexity are based on known (or what he knows, anyway) natural mechanisms. As knowlege of these mechanisms is fleshed out the probabilities of a structure occuring naturally increases. So it’s on to the next one. Where is the utility in this? Not to mention the fact that the number of potential functional proteins is unknown and small changes in regulatory genes can have large phenotype changes leave the assigning of some sort of global information metric pretty iffy. Then his filter requires working back from what occurred with the assumption that it had to occur in the manner it did. The whole idea confuses me and, more importantly, I can find no independent confirmation (even a substantial minority view) of Dembski’s ideas on complexity and information.

“You don’t see any mystery in human thinking, willing, personal identity, etc.? Are you serious? These are the most difficult mysteries to unlock. Even philosophy does not deal with them adequately, let alone science. They may be ultimate givens.

I didn’t say I had a clue. I said there is no reason to believe that these concepts are not locked up in the physical architecture of the brain. Why would I think differently, given that I’m not even sure our conceptions of these concepts are the same?

“He does not imply that at all. Anyway, give an example of a natural process that results in my thinking “2 + 2 = 4″ right now”.

I can’t.

“It’s part of its research program. Give it time.”

Is that the super-secret research program?

Your problem seems to be that intelligence is multi-faceted and takes many forms. Well, let’s take the definition you yourself suggest in your first comment: intelligence is the ability to invent sophisticated technology. Nobody doubts that biological system are at the very least super-advanced technological wonders.

ID defines intelligence as the ability to create information that is contingent, specified, and complex. Both human and biological technology exhibit specified complexity, so our first definition works well enough.

> What natural process is violated here.

Who said anything about violating natural laws or processes? The processes of thinking, discovery, creative innovation do not break any laws of nature. But they are still very difficult to predict.

> It seems more likely that the ideas are generated in the brain rather than beamed in from outer space.

Maybe the “mind” is a better term than “brain.” Don’t confuse the two “worlds”: the world of matter-energy-etc. and the world of subjective experience. The machine is an aspect of the ghost, so to speak.

> Again, all the antecedent circumstances lead to potential. I don’t see the mystery in all this.

You don’t see any mystery in human thinking, willing, personal identity, etc.? Are you serious? These are the most difficult mysteries to unlock. Even philosophy does not deal with them adequately, let alone science. They may be ultimate givens.

> I don’t see where the evidence is to support Dembski’s implication that creativity is somehow disconnected from natural processes.

He does not imply that at all. Anyway, give an example of a natural process that results in my thinking “2 + 2 = 4″ right now.

> When will ID give a specific example of a “creative innovation first emerging”?

It’s part of its research program. Give it time.

‘What’s wrong with defining it like that?’”

Nothing. but it is still not quantified enough to draw a line between intelligence, which I would guess implies some sort of intent, and something like instinct. Definition No.1 could apply to any living organism and No.2 would be limited to what we know about human cognitive abilities. It’s quite a jump to extend the analogy of human intelligence to some sort of unknown non or super human entity based on apparent complexity, particularly if there is no empirical evidence of a design event.

“in contrast to Darwinism, is not a theory about process but about creative innovation. … [it] is not reducible to a causal chain where one step causes the next. … intelligences are free. In the act of creation they violate expectations. They create as they choose to create.”

What expectations? Based on the physical architecture of the human brain the potential is there. What natural process is violated here. I can’t see where this means anything.

“Where do those ideas come from? … No set of antecedent circumstances can account for a creative innovation.”

It seems more likely that the ideas are generated in the brain rather than beamed in from outer space. Again, all the antecedent circumstances lead to potential. I don’t see the mystery in all this. I don’t see where the evidence is to support Dembski’s implication that creativity is somehow disconnected from natural processes.

“Bottom line: Darwinism has a burden of proof that intelligent design does not have.”

That’s convenient. When will ID give a specific example of a “creative innovation first emerging”?

intelligence, according to m-w.com:

1 a (1): the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2): the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

What’s wrong with defining it like that?

> But it does require a proposed process.

See Dembski’s The Design Revolution, Part IV, Question 34, where he poses a challenge: “Isn’t it the height of hypocrisy for design theorists to complain that Darwinism provides no details about the emergence of biological complexity when their own theory, intelligent design, likewise provides no such details?”

His answer is that ID,

in contrast to Darwinism, is not a theory about process but about creative innovation. … [it] is not reducible to a causal chain where one step causes the next. … intelligences are free. In the act of creation they violate expectations. They create as they choose to create. There is nothing that required Mozart to compose his Jupiter Symphony or Bell to invent the telephone or Shakespeare to write King Lear. And there is no way to have predicted these creative innovations.

It is true that

[a]ntecedent circumstances set the stage for creative innovation. Technologies, for instance, evolve by building on previous technologies. But they evolve in the first instance by inventors having ideas. Where do those ideas come from? … No set of antecedent circumstances can account for a creative innovation. Antecedent circumstances, however, need definitely to be considered for their effect on constraining the innovations that are produced.

Bottom line: Darwinism has a burden of proof that intelligent design does not have. Darwinism is a theory of process and therefore needs to provide convincing evidence that the processes it describes are able to bear the weight placed on them. … Intelligent design by contrast has a different burden. As a theory of creative innovation, its burden is to show where creative innovations first emerge and then to trace their causal antecedents and consequences. (251ff)

I agree. There is nothing super or non-natural about them.

“we humans are intelligent”

We are defined more by our technology than our intelligence. There are various degrees of “intelligence” across the animal kingdom. Intelligence is undefined.

“Speaking of design in nature does not require us to discuss the designer of nature at all”

But it does require a proposed process. Otherwise it is a non-starter and can not be compared with evolutionary theory. Evolution has not only a historically observed time-line but several proposed, testable mechanisms. It is not a matter of either/or but a matter of assessing which accounts for the evidence. ID is based on a faulty analogy to humanly designed systems and is dependent on what is known about evolutionary theory, a work in progress.

Magic is a childish idea.

Dembski is a professional liar for Jesus. Scientists laugh at his stupidity.