The Extra Face in Mount Rushmore

Conversation Side Conversation
285

That is the sound of my point whizzing past you. A granite or marble gorge is not an example of intelligent design, and yet it does in fact have high smoothness and sharp relief, which you claimed was the hallmark of design. Since the gorges are not designed, that makes your criterion unreliable. That was the point.

So you claim. I merely point out that the claim is based on a logical fallacy, that because a number of manmade devices display functional information, therefore functional information comes only from design. Let’s also point out that you have been unable to define functional information and that you are unable to calculate Wf/Wt for any real situation.

No, it doesn’t even mean that. What it means is that it becomes extremely improbable based on a random pick from a uniform distribution, which nobody claims is how evolution works.

2 Likes
286

You are right: it is not a “random pick.” It is selection from options in the genetic code. Would you take the odds of natural (not random) selection from a group of completely random mutations that build that genetic code to build nervous systems, blood circulation systems, sexual reproductive systems etc to vegas thinking you might come home w money in your pocket? Of course you would not. But you run w this thinking anyway to describe the nature of existence…,not because the odds are with you but because it is what you want to believe…Kirk is exactly on the right track…not that you value my opinion because i am an utterly foolish yec in your mind probably. I read a couple of his highly technical statements of his and i thought were well communicated and brilliant scientific explanations that described the common sense reality i sense as more an arm chair science/ philosophy guy in looking at this huge clash of worldviews play out.

287

First, a pet peeve of mine: the genetic code is not another word for genome or genes or anything else; it’s the word for the mapping of DNA and RNA triplets to amino acids in protein-coding sequences.

Exactly. Your opinion is worth nothing. It does indeed appear that natural selection acting on random mutation built all the systems you mentioned and all the ones you didn’t.

1 Like
288

I respect you as a human who has every right to make the choices and beliefs that you choose. That is exactly the intention of God when He placed the forbidden tree in the garden. God who is love made man in His image to also love, and love cannot exist under compulsion. So He set things up to allow a choice between one option and the other. You may think my opinion is worth nothing, an opinion that i have chosen. But one has to wonder if my opinion that is worth nothing to you only because it infringes on your opinion whichc could be worth more than mine, but i dare say, may very well be worth less.

This peaceful science stage is really not a science debate. It is a philosophical one.

289

Of course it’s both. To some extent it’s about epistemology. I try to base my opinions on evidence. As has been said often of late, you’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. Your opinions seem to be based entirely on a story you heard, which is why it’s impossible to respect them.

290

7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Introducing Sharon

291

My opinions start with the fact that i have a beating heart, and functioning organs that make me live. My opinions also start with the fact that we have a universe that consists of mass energy that one can make absolutely no sense of the idea that this originated from anything other that from outside the natural realm. My opinions start with the history of a man who walked on this earth claiming to be divine whose followers scattered after he was crucified then arose a zeal on the idea that He came back to life. There were guys like Paul of Tarsus who went from killing Christians one day to becoming the greatest spokesman on the planet for the cause of Christ where he litterally used his extensive training in OT theology to prove Jesus the true Messiah. There are some really good reads on this topic by incredibly rational intelligent individuals including Tim Keller if interested.

Take those three objective-like stances and out from that one must conclude that a God exists that resides outside the natural. And if a God exists outside the natural who indeed spoke the natural into existence from nothing which is the only sensible explanation for entropy, then historical science that tries to determine the nature of our existence gets knocked down several levels as to the quality in its ability yo determine life on this planet.

So your opinions are that materialistic science is the best conduit for truth of our existence must insist that mass energy is eternal. That to me is more of a frail, blind and rather unintelligent opinion in my estimation. Then again, im only an unintelligent yec.

292

I like that word “objective-like”. I take it to mean “simulation of objectivity”, though I suspect that isn’t what you intended. You have confirmed that your opinions are based on a story you heard.

I’m not sure you’re unintelligent, but you certainly are very bad at reasoning, if what you post here is a good sample.

293

I changed the word objective to “objective like” because i wanted to confirm that Christianity is not like the scientific method for determining the laws of gravity, but rather general hints of the existence of a great God that ultimately requires faith in Him! I have never seen God, but I see His fingerprints everywhere and i know He exists! I know He exists. Without hesitation, i know He exists. By His Word that has withstood scrutiny, to the resurrection of Christ, to the command to love neighbor with undaunting care and concern to the actions He has done in my and my family’s life i cannot explain as happenstance. And it all started with a young kid in childlike faith admitting his sinfulness and desire to change to do better and for forgiveness by the action the second person if our triune God did for me on that cross. God is disinterested in our sophistication and savvy. He is interested to bring us as forgiven sinners into His greatness and love. The greatest joy i have ever experienced is found not in me, but in aknowledging Him as ultimate. This saves me from the trouble i only tend to bring! Ha. What about you John Harshman?

294

I’m not really interested in your proselytizing. Sorry.

295

Got it. No more of it from me unless asked (if i forget, please remind me and forgive)

296

You are wrong about your gorge example. The only way you will get sharp relief on smoothly eroded surfaces is if subsequent fracturing occurs. But more importantly, you have misrepresented what I said. I did not claim that high smoothness coupled with sharp relief was a “hallmark of design”. Rather, you will note that I suggested it as one of the variables we could use to analyze the anomaly we observe on Mount Rushmore. There is a big difference.

A hypothesis (as earlier stated) is not to be confused with a logical conclusion, as you have done. As I stated earlier, my hypothesis can be falsified. In science we often make an inference from particular observations to a general hypothesis, but it remains a falsifiable hypothesis just the same, not to be confused with a logical conclusion.

I am mystified. Perhaps you have not read my earlier posts where I linked to two published papers that mathematically define functional information/functional complexity. Hazen et al. has defined it in the link previously provided, and I have defined it in the link previously provided. Please take a look at those papers so that you will be qualified to comment from an informed position.

Again, I refer you to my published paper, where I define it and then demonstrate how it can be used to estimate the degree of functional bits are required for protein families. In this five face problem, I provided and sketched out a method.

Do you even agree that there appears to be an anomaly on Mount Rushmore, when we compare it with the rest of the natural landscape? If so, what variables would you suggest we use to quantify that anomaly? I have worked as a summer student with the Geological Survey in the field and seen that there are objective ways to quantify anomalies. So my first question to you is this … do you admit that, objectively speaking, the feature on Mount Rushmore appears to be anomalous? If you are in denial about that, then there would be no point in discussing something that you won’t even admit exists. If you do admit we have an anomaly there, then what objective variables would you propose we use to quantify that anomaly? This is the way we do science.

297

You can’t have seen any real gorges. Intersecting potholes, for example, present sharp cusps. This can work with sedimentary rock too: consider Antelope Canyon.

Is there? Was the purpose of the analysis of Mount Rushmore not to provide a test of design?

How?

Are those the same thing, as you imply here?

I think those are not valid estimates, and the method in the five face problem hasn’t even been successfully linked to functional information.

Sure. And we also know exactly what caused it. But I don’t think you have a method to quantify that anomaly. I’m not sure I would even know where to start, but I haven’t claimed to have a method either. I just point out that “high smoothness and sharp relief” produces many false positives.

298

So then there is a combination of simple, observed physical processes that result in the “hallmark of design”. But then your inference has a counterexample and therefore isn’t valid.

1 Like
299

What I look for in a good scientist is the ability and interest in problem-solving. “I’m not sure I would even know where to start” is a depressing admission of a failure to even try. If I may spell out a procedure to analyzing anomalies it would be as follows:

Step One: Observe an effect that appears to be an interesting anomaly.

Step Two: Suggest a number of variables that we could look at in putting together a method to objectively quantify the anomaly. By “objective variables” we can rule out “we also know exactly what caused it” and “looks like a human face”. We need a method and variables that could be used by aliens visiting our planet who know nothing of the history of Rushmore, nor what a human might have looked like. That is the way science works … we want to rule out all subjectivity and come up with a universal, objective method that can be used in the full range of applications.

Step Three: Quantify the range of each of the suggested variables and provide an estimate as to where in that range the anomaly falls for each variable.

Step Four: You may wish to evaluate your list of variables. If there are some that are so lacking in resolution that they provide as many false positives and false negatives, then they really are not helpful in distinguishing an anomaly from the general background, and you may wish to eliminate them. This is where sharp relief vs. smoothness comes into play … there is a range that can be normalized. The examples you suggest fall into the lower end of the range, but an anomaly will fall into the upper end of the range.

Step Five: Once we have agreed upon the relevant variables and where each variable falls within it’s own range, we are in a position to estimate the level of functional information required to produce the anomaly, using the equation I provided earlier, which is essentially the equation that Hazen et al published. If one wants to work with a non-uniform distribution of probabilities, then I would use the equations I published in my paper.

Step Six: Once the value of functional information has been estimated, then a statistical decision must be made as to whether that value is statistically significant or not. If it is not, then the anomaly fails to qualify as something requiring intelligent design. If it is a statistically significant deviation from the null hypothesis (no intelligence required … natural processes can demonstrably produce the same anomaly), then the anomaly tests positive for intelligent design.

I’m going to end my participation in this discussion at this point, as I don’t see any serious attempt to engage Josh’s original problem, or to even demonstrate an aptitude and interest for problem-solving. It’s too bad, as Josh’s problem is an interesting one, and science can address the challenge of identifying and quantifying anomalies. In fact, more than 20 years ago, my first application of functional information (taking off from Leon Brillouin’s work in the early 1950’s) in science was to use it to quantify anomalies. It’s been an interesting discussion.

1 Like
300

I understand @kirk, we did split out the off topic part of the thread.

I’m seeing your rational better too. There are two questions that linger.

  1. However, I’m still a bit dumbfounded on letting go of the notion that Mount Everest is designed. If that is the case, you must be admiting design has to do with how God creates, and that at times it is not detectable.

  2. In your methodology above, does it not all depend on the presumption of design? In other words, do you not need some sort of agreed upon positive examples that everyone agrees is designed? If so that seems to dramatically limit its applicability, because no one agrees about anything like this in the molecular domain of biology.

301

At least in my view, all of the attempts appear to be working backwards from the conclusion. You start with the conclusion that the extra face is not designed while the other faces are designed, and then arbitrarily pick criteria that will get you to that conclusion. The only way I can see out of this quagmire is to detect human activity independent of the designs themselves, such as measuring dynamite residue in the debris piles.

1 Like
302

I think the issue is not about design or non design as we cannot rule out the universe is designed so everything is designed is a real possibility.

The issue is our ability to detect design from our own ability to design. I propose that the measure is detectability from what we know as human designers.

Mount Everest in itself is does not show a high level of human design detection but a physical replica of it does. So while the physical forces can theoretically form it conscious intelligence is required to make a replica of it.

This reminds me of a conversation Issac Newton had with an atheist friend admiring a replica of our solar system on his desk. The friend asked Newton who made it and Newton replied that it made itself. You can imagine how this discussion was reconciled.

303

There is also the case of false positives. Humans often see intent or design where there is none. The human brain is really good at creating associations between different things, but it errs on the side of false positives. I can’t remember who said it, but it is better to be scared by wind moving through the high grass than to ignore the sounds of a tiger moving through that same high grass.

Biologos had a good example which works well here:

image
image811×770 155 KB

reference

Is that designed? Well, it is as designed as any other rock. Those are staurolite crystals, and they form spontaneously in nature. If we had no clue as to how staurolite formed, the chemistry behind it, or the geology behind it, would we conclude that it is designed? It is possible we would conclude that it is designed.

1 Like
304

I think you may conclude it is designed but with lower confidence than if George Washingtons face was in the rock. The data supporting design detection will have variation in confidence but this can easily be dealt with.