"Exposing Discovery Institute": video series by "Professor" Dave Farina

Just returning to the original subject of this thread, none of the recent discussion here is supporting the professor. As I understand it, he basically holds a Dawkins-like position - all evolution is attributed to RM+NS. However, I don't listen to the professor regularly!!

David

Information is in the science sphere of pragmatic reality.

I think we need to pin down what you mean by "Information". I mean conventionally it either means Shannon information - and I don't think you mean that - or it means say the abstract contents of a book. Assuming the latter, information is still something passive. If you buy a book and then don't read it, it achieves nothing.

Information requires a conscious entity to read it.

David

Before even remotely considering the Third Way thinking I would need there to be plausible rebuttals to all the major arguments for ID, including the actual fossil record especially the Cambrian Explosion, the ubiquitous presence in all living organisms of irreducible complexity, and the wait time problem. Do you know of some?

I've now waited a while and Stephenw hasn't responded to my request for plausible rebuttals to some of the major arguments for ID, where ID seriously conflicts with the Third Way concepts. In the abscence of such plausible rebuttals I have to assume there are none and ID is by far the preferred concept to explain the actual observed process of evolution, the irreducible complexity in the organization of living organisms, etc. and as also exemplified by the fossil record.

I've now waited a while and Stephenw hasn't responded to my request for plausible rebuttals to some of the major arguments for ID, where ID seriously conflicts with the Third Way concepts. In the abscence of such plausible rebuttals I have to assume there are none and ID is by far the preferred concept to explain the actual observed process of evolution, the irreducible complexity in the organization of living organisms, etc. and as also exemplified by the fossil record.

Did you watch Farina's videos?

Did you watch Farina's videos?

I already watched and responded to a key video ID debunking exercise by Farina (primarily on irreducible complexit). My response was in post # 37 of this thread. At the outset I said,

"I listened to one of the key debunking videos generated by Farina, the 3rd one, which attempts to debunk Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. I think it is rubbish. Every point he tried to make has been adequately addressed by ID advocates and researchers at the DI."

I then in this post presented why they are rubbish.

I already watched and responded to a key video ID debunking exercise by Farina (primarily on irreducible complexit). My response was in post # 37 of this thread. At the outset I said,

"I listened to one of the key debunking videos generated by Farina, the 3rd one, which attempts to debunk Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. I think it is rubbish. Every point he tried to make has been adequately addressed by ID advocates and researchers at the DI."

I then in this post presented why they are rubbish.

But there are at least 7 videos?

I just think it's a bit odd to demand Stephen respond in a few days, when someone could make the claim that you have not responded to all of Farina's arguments against the DI?

I watched part of the Behe one, and it did seem pretty damning against DI, though I've not deeply examined the rebuttals yet...

I think we need to pin down what you mean by "Information". I mean conventionally it either means Shannon information - and I don't think you mean that - or it means say the abstract contents of a book. Assuming the latter, information is still something passive. If you buy a book and then don't read it, it achieves nothing.

Information requires a conscious entity to read it.

David

Communication sciences deal with the structural aspects in the informational environment - just as chemistry, crystallography and location deal with physical structure.  Structure is generally a passive element of an actual circumstance.  It will have relation to its affordances which generate activity.  Shannon excluded "meanings" from the equations.  Their is plenty of science and studies to put it back, holistically.

In common language, Shannon entropy is not meant by "information".  MEANING is meant.  SE (Shannon Entropy) + meaning = information objects)  5 kilowatts describes a structure for measure but 5 kw as a reading on a meter, at a specific time and place, is a meaningful object and well-formed data.

Meaningful information evokes things, events and processes.  It can refer to things in the physical environment or in our informational environments.  Meanings can be subjective and personal, but when the "soft sciences" use the scientific method on the level of medicine, ethics, sociology, psychology and history the meaningful relations and their patterns can be studied as objective information.
 
Please assume that researching history is an informationally active process.  New information comes to light about our past and future.  These are not measurable in the physical environment.  However, they are real and subject to investigation in an informational environment.

Published research has evolved an informational environmental statement to go with it.

  The "Six Sigma scientific method" refers to a data-driven approach to process improvement, based on the scientific method, that utilizes a five-step process called DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) to identify and eliminate defects within a system, aiming to achieve near-perfect quality by minimizing process variation; essentially, it's a structured way to analyze and improve processes using statistical tools and data analysis to make informed decisions.

At the heart of the merger of information structure and the meanings it can communicate --- is representation theory.

 "Scientific method representation theory" refers to the philosophical study of how scientific models, equations, and other representations capture and convey information about real-world phenomena, essentially examining the relationship between a scientific representation (like a model) and the target system it aims to represent, within the framework of the scientific method; it explores how scientists use these representations to reason about and explain complex systems by simplifying them into manageable forms.

   Scientific models can be very active in changing the informational environment.

But there are at least 7 videos?

I just think it's a bit odd to demand Stephen respond in a few days, when someone could make the claim that you have not responded to all of Farina's arguments against the DI?

I watched part of the Behe one, and it did seem pretty damning against DI, though I've not deeply examined the rebuttals yet...

In pursuing this thread I have made a number of posts, listed as #7, #11, #26, #37, #41, #53, #66, and #70, responding to Farina's attempted debunking of ID (mainly Farina's 3rd one, concentrating on irreducible complexity as a primary ID finding that Farina tries to debunk). I made extensive use of and cited a number of Bechly's articles in DI's Evolution News Internet magazine. Bechly is an expert paleontologist and evolutionary expert, and Bechly's articles conclusively refute Farina's supposed "debunkings" of the primary elements of Intelligent Design theory. Bechly's findings (which I have used extensively) should be taken very seriously
 
No one here has seen fit to take the time to take apart and refute my and Bechly's refutations of Farina's arguments and our conclusion that they are rubbish, so until the Discovery Institute's responses to Farina are refuted here, supposedly I can assume there are no plausible refutations.

In pursuing this thread I have made a number of posts, listed as #7, #11, #26, #37, #41, #53, #66, and #70, responding to Farina's attempted debunking of ID (mainly Farina's 3rd one, concentrating on irreducible complexity as a primary ID finding that Farina tries to debunk). I made extensive use of and cited a number of Bechly's articles in DI's Evolution News Internet magazine. Bechly is an expert paleontologist and evolutionary expert, and Bechly's articles conclusively refute Farina's supposed "debunkings" of the primary elements of Intelligent Design theory. Bechly's findings (which I have used extensively) should be taken very seriously
 
No one here has seen fit to take the time to take apart and refute my and Bechly's refutations of Farina's arguments and our conclusion that they are rubbish, so until the Discovery Institute's responses to Farina are refuted here, supposedly I can assume there are no plausible refutations.

I think you’re missing my point, which is that it’s odd to claim victory because someone doesn’t respond to you over a few days.

But I do plan to go through every Farina video + DI rebuttals. That will likely take a very long time.

I think you’re missing my point, which is that it’s odd to claim victory because someone doesn’t respond to you over a few days.

But I do plan to go through every Farina video + DI rebuttals. That will likely take a very long time.

Even a partial response to just one of the key DI refutations (such as to the discovery of irreducible complexity and the many arguments formulated by the DI for just this aspect of ID theory being valid) would have sufficed for a partial response. And certainly a successful debunking of irreducible complexity would have to be admitted to be a strong blow against ID and the DI. But even such a partial response has been lacking, leading to the suspicion that there really aren't any plausible such debunkings .