Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 513

March 8, 2019

Robert J. Marks: The mathematics underlying our world is fascinating and full of surprises

He offers some here:

When I teach a course, I too like to sell the sizzle at the beginning of each lecture. For a graduate course in information theory I teach, the students are told that they will learn why their cell phones use recently discovered coding that pushes the boundaries of what is mathematically possible in communication speed. I also tell them that we will prove that some things exist that we can also prove are unknowable. And there are numbers that a computer can’t compute. There also exists a single number, Chaitin’s number, that we know lies between zero and one. If we knew Chaitin’s number to finite precision, we could prove or disprove numerous open problems in mathematics. Large monetary awards await anyone who supplies a proof.

But guess what? Even though we know that Chaitin’s number exists, we can also prove it is unknowable. How’s that for sizzle? Contra-nerds may be bored. STEM nerds will drool with anticipation. I am convinced sizzle can be identified for every STEM class. I teach a number-crunching class on multidimensional signal processing where we talk of iterative algorithms converging to a fixed point. Sounds pretty boring huh? But consider the following sizzling example, understandable to all: … Robert J. Marks, “STEM Education 7: Sell the Sizzle” at Mind Matters

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Top Ten AI hypes of 2018

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 08, 2019 07:04

LoneCycler on paradigms advancing one funeral at a time, etc

LC also has some food for thought for Friday fun:

LC, 18: >>From
the OP “Today’s dominant school of thought can become tomorrow’s dead
theory, often one funeral at a time.” This is true. Every time they find
another fossil they have to re-organize their phylogenetic trees. Some
trees have been changed so many times it’s almost like watching a game
of three card monte, trying to figure out where the Lady is going to be
located this time around.

“Next, we must recognize that without people, there is no science.” I
would add that without people there is also no scientism. We can
attempt to rationalize why creeping scientism is on the creep but this
is a waste of time. It’s human nature and like many other things it’s a
moral crime at the least and at the worst it leads to a slide into the
abyss.

People commit crimes against others for three reasons. And only three
reasons. For greed of money, sexual lust and the pursuit of power. From
murder to misdemeanors there are only these root causes.

Take Alexander Rosenberg cited in the OP. A 1960’s radical leftist
who has been ensconced in academia his entire adult life, I reckon his
motivation is once he found out economics was a complete crock he
focused on the philosophy of science as a means to stay employed. After
all, it’s not like Darwinism informs advancement of any science, it’s
just that it needs active priests like him to keep people in line. So I
put him down for greed of money, and idle thoughts of power over what
other people are allowed to think. Modern Unis like Duke are not in the
business of enlightenment but about raking in as much cash as possible
while ensuring anyone wanting to pursue a life of the mind shares the
same mindset of the Ubermenschen.

“So, we know that where we see reliable signs of design, we are
warranted to infer that as best explanation….” As an example of this I
was scouting a hunting lease this week and came across a figure 4
deadfall trap. This was evidence that some person was there actively
trapping small game on land I paid money to reserve for myself. If you
don’t know what a figure 4 deadfall is this 3:47 video will make you an
expert at identifying them in the wild. (Viewer discretion advised.)

If you were walking around the deep woods, the nearest road two miles
away, the nearest habitation more than 20, and came across something
like this what would you think about it? How did this thing get here?
Clearly, the A-Mats among us would declare “The wind, rain and lightning
caused wild fires that caused those three sticks to be cut at just the
right places and positioned so they could support that 10 pound rock
they’re holding up entirely by chance. It may have taken a decade or so
to evolve here.”

The figure 4 trap is pretty simple and can be constructed with found
objects and crude tools as the video shows. But they don’t assemble
themselves at random by chance. Would you agree that if you found one of
these in the woods it was made by a designer? That there was another
mind involved in constructing it?

Let’s examine the branches from the spruce tree that were used for
the three sticks that I found. A single cell from the spruce has only 12
chromosomes but more than 7 times the DNA of a human cell. Somehow,
we’re not entirely certain, the genetic material in the cells produce a
living organism that reproduces itself by production of male and female
gametes, transferring the male gametes to the female ovules by
pollination. This results in seeds that are dispersed by the wind, water
and animals, the process continuing for at least the past 136 million
years. A self-replicating living organism, established around the entire
planet, and nothing but random chance is involved?

Compare the complexity of the figure 4 deadfall trap, which you have
to admit, is not that complicated but never-the-less contains reliable
sign of design, against the complexity of the living cell and its nearly
unbelievable complexity. A living cell is much more complicated. But
we’re told by folks running the three card monte that if we think it did
not occur by random chance we must be some kind of snake handling bible
basher down from the hills.

I assure you, we’re not.>>

Again, food for thought. Is functionally specific complex organisation a good sign of design? Why/why not? Is “moral crime” fair comment? And so forth. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 08, 2019 04:19

Harry’s food for thought on “Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational”

This is the first of two food for thought pieces coming from comments in the scientism thread:

Harry, 7: >>Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational

In order to demonstrate how a given instance of functional complexity
might come about mindlessly and accidentally, one must first know how
to create it intentionally. Then, one can at least begin to explain how
the required steps in the functional-complexity-assembling procedure
might, over enough time, happen mindlessly, accidentally, and in the
necessary sequence, through some combination of chance and the laws of
physics.

So, until science knows how to create life – an instance of massive
functional complexity – from scratch, they are in no position to insist
that it came about mindlessly and accidentally over any amount of time. How can they just assume that it did? They can’t. Not rationally.

It seems that significant functional complexity, certainly when its
construction is directed by massive quantities of extremely precise
digital information like that found in life’s DNA, is simply beyond the
capacity of time, chance and the laws of physics to produce. If that
were possible there would be naturally occurring phenomena that exhibit
digital information-based functional complexity comparable to that of
life. There isn’t even one such natural phenomenon. So on what basis
does science insist that life came about mindlessly and accidentally?
There is no rational basis for that assumption whatsoever.

Every instance known to us of significant functional complexity
(other than that found in life), the construction of which was directed
by digitally stored information, came about with intelligent agency as
causal factor in its emergence. Every single one. There is simply no
reason whatsoever to believe that digital information-based functional
complexity can be arrived at mindlessly and accidentally.

So why does science insist on this irrational assumption? It has been
perverted by atheism, which denies the existence of realities outside
the natural realm (in particular a supernatural, intelligent designer of
life). Atheism insists on this without any rational reason to believe
that there are no such realities. Ask an atheist exactly why can’t there
be realities outside of the realm of the natural. You will find that
they have no idea. So how can they be so sure that that is the case?
They can’t. And there is much evidence that indicates that there must
be supernatural realities that transcend nature other than the evidence
that indicates that the emergence of life required a supernatural
intelligent designer.

For example, it is now the consensus of modern science that the
natural Universe – time, space, matter and energy – had a beginning.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause; of that we can be sure. Yet
from nothing (nothing in terms of the absence of time, space, matter
and energy), nothing comes; of that we can also be sure. This means that
the Universe must have been caused by a reality outside of the natural
realm – a supernatural reality. The natural Universe’s cause couldn’t
have been a natural reality because natural realities are what began to
exist. The natural Universe came into being, caused by nothing natural,
but by a supernatural reality.

Atheism has perverted science. Contemporary science needs to return
to its theistic foundation, namely, that nature’s intelligibility is
what makes science possible, and that its intelligibility is due to its
Intelligent Author.>>

What are our thoughts? Is it fair comment to suggest that materialistic atheism has ideologised and distorted science? END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 08, 2019 04:13

March 7, 2019

Octopuses even have “smart” skin

closeup of squid chromatophores/Steve Senft (Hanlon Lab, Marine Biological Laboratory)

From ScienceDaily:

Squid skin contains two types of structures that manipulate light to produce various colors. The chromatophores contain elastic sacs of pigment that stretch rapidly into discs of color when the muscles around them contract. When light strikes the pigment granules, they absorb the majority of the wavelengths and reflect back only a narrow band of color.

Deeper in the skin, cells called iridophores reflect all the light that hits them. By scattering this light, a method known as structural coloration, they bounce back a bright sheen of iridescence.

For decades, all available data had indicated that these separate structures could only produce one type of coloration or the other: pigmentary or structural. But when co-author and MBL researcher Stephen L. Senft looked closely at the squid chromatophores, he spotted iridescence shimmering in perfect alignment with the pigment.

“In that top layer, embedded into the chromatophore organ, is structural coloration,” says Hanlon. “No one had found anything like that.”

Hanlon, who has spent the better part of four decades studying cephalopod biology, went back through his old Kodachrome slides of chromatophores. Sure enough, he found a photograph of blue iridescence reflecting from a chromatophore. At the time, he had assumed the shimmering blue was from an iridophore deeper in the skin.

“I saw this in 1978, and I didn’t realize what I was looking at,” Hanlon says. “It’s incredible.” Paper. open access – Thomas L. Williams, Stephen L. Senft, Jingjie Yeo, Francisco J. Martín-Martínez, Alan M. Kuzirian, Camille A. Martin, Christopher W. DiBona, Chun-Teh Chen, Sean R. Dinneen, Hieu T. Nguyen, Conor M. Gomes, Joshua J. C. Rosenthal, Matthew D. MacManes, Feixia Chu, Markus J. Buehler, Roger T. Hanlon, Leila F. Deravi. Dynamic pigmentary and structural coloration within cephalopod chromatophore organs. Nature Communications, 2019; 10 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-08891-x More.

The hope is to use the “smart skin” find to develop materials that can change color quickly and easily. Hanlon notes that “It’s not as far-fetched of a goal today as it was even three years ago.”

So much complex, specified information and we are to believe it all just sort of happened via natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism)? Interestingly, this particular item doesn’t even make that claim. Maybe just too ridiculous.

See also: Is the octopus a “second genesis” of intelligence?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 07, 2019 15:50

Heavyweights defend philosophy in science at PNAS

Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)

A number of heavyweights have co-authored an op-ed defending the role of philosophy in science. The late Jerry Fodor is a philosopher they cite as exemplifying a continuum of science and philosophy:

Philosophy has also helped the field of cognitive science winnow problematic or outdated assumptions, helping drive scientific change. The concepts of mind, intelligence, consciousness, and emotion are used ubiquitously across different fields with often little agreement on their meaning (16). Engineering artificial intelligence, constructing psychological theories of mental state variables, and using neuroscience tools to investigate consciousness and emotion require the conceptual tools for self-critique and cross-disciplinary dialogue—precisely the tools that philosophy can supply.

The above examples are far from the only ones: in the life sciences, philosophical reflection has played an important role in issues as diverse as evolutionary altruism (17), debate over units of selection (18), the construction of a “tree of life” (19), the predominance of microbes in the biosphere, the definition of the gene, and the critical examination of the concept of innateness (20). Likewise, in physics, fundamental questions such as the definition of time have been enriched by the work of philosophers. For example, the analysis of temporal irreversibility by Huw Price (21) and closed temporal curves by David Lewis (22) have helped dispel conceptual confusion in physics (23). Lucie Laplane, Paolo Mantovani, Ralph Adolphs, Hasok Chang, Alberto Mantovani, Margaret McFall-Ngai, Carlo Rovelli, Elliott Sober, and Thomas Pradeu, “Opinion: Why science needs philosophy” at PNAS

The thing is, scientists do philosophy whether they admit it and try to be coherent or don’t admit it, with distressing results. For example, one can certainly argue that a coffee mug is in some sense conscious or that consciousness is a material substance. Or that fish show self-awareness or that robots are people too. Or that an intelligent AI apocalypse is upon us. But what are the philosophical underpinnings and implications of such claims, given that we don’t even have a clear idea what consciousness is?

Identifying with a specific philosophy on which an argument is based sounds more limiting than saying, in essence, I’m a scientist, hear me roar! But it certainly makes for more credible discussions in difficult areas.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Consciousness studies is a bizarre field of science The question of whether machines can be conscious is bound up with attempts to study immaterial things while denying their existence

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 07, 2019 15:00

Darwin vs the polar bear ;)

Michael Behe, author of Darwin Devolves, responds to claims that he has misunderstood the polar bear:

This is the first in a series of posts responding to the extended critique of Darwin Devolves by Richard Lenski at his blog, Telliamed Revisited. Professor Lenski is perhaps the most qualified scientist in the world to analyze the arguments of the book…

The question Behe is addressing is whether a genetic adaptation in polar bears that enables them to live on a high-fat diet is actually a convenient loss rather than a gain. In much the same way, a broken side window might help you get into a house if you forget the key code. In extremely cold weather, that may save your life. But it’s not home improvement.

The APOB gene is exceptional in having such detailed research done on it. Most other genes haven’t been so closely investigated. Nonetheless, in the absence of positive evidence to doubt a prediction for a specific case, the results of the computer analysis should be tentatively accepted for other genes to which it has been applied as well. Skepticism on the matter seems to stem less from the data than it does from reflexive defensiveness. (One of Lenski’s co-reviewers actually talked himself into thinking that “it is entirely possible that none of the 17 most positively selected genes in polar bears are ‘damaged.’” Now there’s a great opportunity for someone to make a few dollars with a friendly wager.) …

Helpful higher level changes can often be misleading, because they might actually be based on degradative molecular changes. There is every reason to think that’s what occurred in the evolution of the examples I cite in Darwin Devolves, definitely including the magnificent Ursus maritimus. The more effective clearance of its cholesterol allows the polar bear to thrive on a diet of seal blubber, but it is the result of a mutation that breaks or blunts APOB. Michael Behe, “
Lessons from Polar Bear Studies” at Evolution News and Science Today:

He offers an interesting analogy to a milkshake machine.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Michael Behe: How to tell if scientists are bluffing

and

Michael Behe responds to the hit prepublication review at Science

Blubber acquisition explained:

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 07, 2019 07:13

Physicist: How the multiverse can save the soul of physics

A physicst calls it quantum monism but he more or less means the multiverse. The problem, as he sees it, is that “the laws of physics appear to be finely tuned to permit the existence of intelligent beings who can discover those laws—a coincidence that demands explanation”. However, if we accept that there are zillions of universes out there, science loses its power to predict anything: “There is no obvious guiding principle for the CERN physicists searching for new particles. And there is no fundamental law to be discovered behind the accidental properties of the universe.” His proposal?

This is where “quantum monism,” as championed by Rutgers University philosopher Jonathan Schaffer, enters the stage. Schaffer has mused over the question what the universe is made of. According to quantum monism, the fundamental layer of reality is not made of particles or strings but the universe itself—understood not as the sum of things making it up but rather as a single, entangled quantum state…

Moreover, this conclusion extends to other multiverse concepts such as different laws of physics in the various valleys of the “string theory landscape” or other “baby universes” popping up in eternal cosmological inflation. Since entanglement is universal, it doesn’t stop at the boundary of our cosmic patch. Whatever multiverse you have, when you adopt quantum monism they are all part of an integrated whole: There always is a more fundamental layer of reality underlying the many universes within the multiverse, and that layer is unique. Heinrich Pas, “Quantum Monism Could Save the Soul of Physics” at Scientific American

It’s not clear how proposing a cosmic layer underlying the universes would help the problem Dr. Pas describes (ruling out fine-tuning) if the layer is not part of the universe we now study. It may, of course, be easily incorporated into a number of world religions. One suspects it already has been.

Note: He references Sabine Hossenfelder’s work. Maybe she will reply.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: What would a multiverse really be like?

Sabine Hossenfelder: The multiverse is “a fringe idea”

and

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 07, 2019 06:44

March 6, 2019

Kirk MacGregor: Evolution Proves Molinism

“Evolution provides a theological solution to a theological problem, and the science is sandwiched somewhere in between. But the theological premises are denied so the theological result is seen as coming from science, and science inappropriately attains the status of truth giver.” I made that observation in Darwin’s God, and unfortunately it remains just as true today. The latest example of this phenomenon comes in the brand new volume, Calvinism and Middle Knowledge where, in Chapter 2, Kirk MacGregor strongly argues that evolution proves Molinism. Molinism was one of the dozen or more religious motivations and mandates for evolutionary thought, and now in the twenty-first century, evolution is used as a proof text for Molinism. See the sequence? Religion drives the science, and the resulting theory is then used to confirm the religion. This can only work where (i) there is a loss of historical continuity, where evolution is seen as an objective, tabula rasa, empirical finding, and (ii) there is a breakdown in the science. Below I summarize MacGregor’s argument, and explain why it fails scientifically, and is incoherent. Read more …

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 06, 2019 18:39

US prez Trump vows to tie federal funding to campus free speech

Details are unclear but U.S. President Trump has threatened to cut off federal research funds to colleges and universities that deny free speech:

In an interview after Trump’s speech, Terry Hartle, senior vice president for the American Council on Education, called the executive order “a solution in search of a problem,” because “free speech and academic freedom are core values of research universities.”

Oh. Well then they shouldn’t have any problem with the President’s position at all, should they?

Some experts believe the President may succeed in using an executive order to restrict research funds. “There’s a history of the federal government requiring universities to do certain kinds of things in order to receive federal research funding,” Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a professor of education at American University, tells The Washington Post. Miller-Idriss gives the example of the government’s ethical guidelines for projects with human subjects. Carolyn Wilke, “Trump Threatens to Cut Federal Research Funding Over Free Speech” at The Scientist

Reality check: If universities would rather cater to the raging Woke than, for example, sign the Chicago Statement. and get on with the business of research, why on earth should the taxpayer fund them?

Can’t they just indulge their vices privately the way the rest of the world does? Open a window, somebody, please!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: Maybe dissent from Darwin can’t kill a career anymore?

FIRE’s tenworst colleges for free speech

and

Jerry Coyne Discovers The Lack Of Intellectual Freedom On Campus

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 06, 2019 17:37

Would you know if a robot was writing the news about ID? How?

AI now automates formula news in business and sports. How far can it go?

Some researchers have recently claimed that they are frightened to release a new AI writing tool they have developed:

One concern they have is that the technology would be used to turbo-charge fake news operations. The Guardian published a fake news article written by the software along with its coverage of the research. The article is readable and contains fake quotes that are on topic and realistic. The grammar is better than a lot what you’d see from fake news content mills. And according to The Guardian’s Alex Hern, it only took 15 seconds for the bot to write the article. Rhett Jones, “Elon Musk-backed AI Company Claims It Made a Text Generator That’s Too Dangerous to Release” at Gizmodo

The researchers work for the non-profit AI research group OpenAI, backed by entrepreneur-inventor Elon Musk. They have released only a small model to work with and a paper, citing fear of how “bad actors” might use a bigger model. Denyse O’Leary, “Who’s afraid of AI that can write the news?” at Mind Matters

It’s not that robots are really thinking up new things so much as that so much of what passes for news coverage doesn’t require much thought. One outcome of the digital revolution is that mass media have tended to become characters in and not narrators of public stories. It’s becoming more important than ever to seek out news sources you can personally trust.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

See also: If a robot read the news, would you notice a difference?

Could AI write novels?

and

Does AI art spell the end of the artist’s way of life?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on March 06, 2019 16:50