This is amazing! Dr. Dembski and Dr. Ewert are both brilliant and excellent examples of godly Christian gentlemen. Dr. Reeves was a superb host in this discussion; wonderful job. Hats off to the Discovery Institute!
I was convinced and fascinated by darwinian evolution, having read "Origins" at a very young age, which motivated me to take an anthropology class as an elective while attending college. I can vividly recall the exact moment that it hit me just how farcical the darwinian paradigm is while in that class, which prompted me to immediately drop the class. "Intelligent Design", necessitated by demonstrable biologic complexity, makes more sense. Even Dawkins recognizes biologic design, although on a more macro level, while I believe that Origin of Life chemistry and cellular complexity in the form of micro machines, informatics, and micro communication systems make the better arguments. DNA helicases are a prime example. OK, while one can argue based on naturalism, there's no way for the naturalistic not to concede that inferring design and arguing therefrom, isn't justified. Thank you gentlemen. Continued success. And, God bless.
I was at the live 'zoom' stream. I appreciate both authors taking questions from live audience. Other than tricking us with... "get a signed copy" of the book (turns out you have to show up IN PERSON to Dallas 🙄)...the interview was excellent.
One morning I found the bin cover half way in the middle of the garden. I thought the suspects could be, a person, the wind, or the foxes. I'm sure it wasn't the birds, the cats, or the squirrels. We made design intentions everyday. When I ask people who comment on social media, it amazes me who reluctant they are to admit they use it. Their determination to reject or explain design overrides their honesty with this subject.
Evolutionists will say that natural selection produced specified complexity in life...but life needs specified complexity for natural selection. How do they get around that predicament?
Some people resist the idea that the universe was deliberately designed and created because they haven't given design any thought beyond: "If I admit design I'll be admitting God". Many people have, however, given lots of thought to design, and, thank God, my own experience designing processes and developing software has given me a great foundation for understanding and synthesizing those ideas. So, how do we verify whether something, or its constituents, was designed? There are four main hallmarks of design that one can discern while examining a designed thing: 1) it's a functional arrangement of parts 2) its function and/or composition is comprehensible by multiple minds 3) its behavior is predictable 4) it's purposeful These four are inextricably linked, though any one on its own would strongly indicate design, and any two or three or all four would definitely identify a designed thing. - 1) it is a functional arrangement of literal and/or abstract parts. E.g., Functional Information is, at its most abstract, a purposeful arrangement of concepts: purely abstract. A hooch is a simple shelter composed of literal tree branches and the abstract knowledge that arranging them in a certain manner will provide shelter: so, abtract and literal parts. So anything that does something useful and is composed of two or more parts was designed. (This, of course, does not necessarily mean that a non-functional arrangement of parts was not designed. It could be purely decorative, or a work-in-progress.) But wait, there's more, see 2, 3 and 4! - 2) its function and/or composition is comprehensible by multiple minds. If something can be comprehended by only one intelligent mind, it might be argued that that person is indulging in wishful thinking or this is a case of pareidolia (but if 1, 3 and 4 apply, comprehensibility by only one person would not invalidate the detection of design). However, if many people can understand the functional arrangement of parts in similar ways and to similar extents, then there's no doubt it was designed. Code breakers and SETI scientists depend on the principle that if a detectable pattern can be understood as valid information and used to produce predictable results, then its decryption was correctly done and it was designed by an intelligent source. In other words, coded information transmitted, coded information received and accurately interpreted. - 3) its behavior is predictable This highlights specificity and uniformity of function. The functional designed object doesn't just do random things under random conditions. As comprehension of its functioning increases, it becomes clear why its doing what under various combinations of conditions, in response to various stimuli, in reaction to different stresses, etc. That kind of specific functioning is only ever the result of foresight, imagination, reason, synthesization, critical thinking, and problem-solving, things that only happen or can be designed to happen in a designing mind. Higher orders of design can be distinguished by how functions mesh with the performance of other functions or the functions of other things in the same environment or - denoting an even higher level of design - in timed concert with other functions or things to perform even other functions or achieve an even greater objective. - 4) it is purposeful. The functioning of a purposeful arrangement of parts strongly indicates design, and it also shows purpose. How do we detect purpose? Using some of the distinguishing faculties of that amazing God-given scientific instrument - the human mind: Foresight, imagination, reason, self-awareness, self-knowledge, synthesization, critical thinking, and problem-solving. What happens - sometimes over years of analysis, sometimes in a few milliseconds - when a human mind becomes aware of a deliberate arrangement of parts? First, observation that it's composed of parts, i.e., more than one thing, physical or abstract, is involved. Second, perception from experience that the arrangement is not random. Third, realization that it can be interacted with in a useful way. Fourth, recognition that it can be used to produce something, act upon something else or used to elicit an action from something else. The development of such coordinated functioning only results from the activity of a designing mind that can establish a purpose, gather the prerequisites and then do what it takes to fulfill that purpose. An example familiar to all persons is the human body. Think of those systems and and parts that demonstrate *purposeful* arrangement by: 1) *functioning autonomically* to sustain your well-being and; 2) functioning *in concert* with other parts and systems and; 3) *functioning adaptively* as the environment changes and/or as your body develops and ages. So, design can be detected, and verified. Those who would still try to run from the facts may claim that it is our perceptions that give meaning to things, and the hallmarks of design identified above only appear to make sense because we are imputing that meaning to what we see, that's it's only "the appearance of design". There are two ways to answer that conclusively: a) the universe and all the functional things in it long preceded our ability to perceive and impute any meaning to them and functioned, as they still do, in the same ways; we're just discovering how they function. b) our perceptions - as we can discern using the same hallmarks discussed above - were designed into human consciousness so that we could discover the meaning that is already there. Meaning that was designed into the universe so that we could discover it and thus, discover our Creator and his purpose for us.
1:09:38 this is where you turn to “divine missions” in Christian theology. The two historical divine intrusions (incarnation and Pentecost) provide a model of design.
I won seven nil england and predicted Harry kane to score first at 70/1 and rashford anytime at 90/1 and just 7-0 at 45/1 (3/5 winning bets) and then a few weeks later won six nil women's world cup germany and predicted Alexander popp to score first at 100/1 haha i might have done some calculations 😅 I felt like/knew it was an event that had to happen 👍 😊 I would consider the odds to be over 1000/1 but ahh well they need to make some penny's and set the odds
Loved listening to three great minds discuss important ideas with great clarity -- and the listener questions were also of very high quality. Great discussion!
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
This is amazing! Dr. Dembski and Dr. Ewert are both brilliant and excellent examples of godly Christian gentlemen. Dr. Reeves was a superb host in this discussion; wonderful job. Hats off to the Discovery Institute!
I was convinced and fascinated by darwinian evolution, having read "Origins" at a very young age, which motivated me to take an anthropology class as an elective while attending college.
I can vividly recall the exact moment that it hit me just how farcical the darwinian paradigm is while in that class, which prompted me to immediately drop the class.
"Intelligent Design", necessitated by demonstrable biologic complexity, makes more sense.
Even Dawkins recognizes biologic design, although on a more macro level, while I believe that Origin of Life chemistry and cellular complexity in the form of micro machines, informatics, and micro communication systems make the better arguments.
DNA helicases are a prime example.
OK, while one can argue based on naturalism, there's no way for the naturalistic not to concede that inferring design and arguing therefrom, isn't justified.
Thank you gentlemen.
Continued success.
And,
God bless.
I was at the live 'zoom' stream.
I appreciate both authors taking questions from live audience.
Other than tricking us with... "get a signed copy" of the book (turns out you have to show up IN PERSON to Dallas 🙄)...the interview was excellent.
I have just finished the first chapter. Thank you for updating this classic book.
One morning I found the bin cover half way in the middle of the garden. I thought the suspects could be, a person, the wind, or the foxes. I'm sure it wasn't the birds, the cats, or the squirrels. We made design intentions everyday.
When I ask people who comment on social media, it amazes me who reluctant they are to admit they use it. Their determination to reject or explain design overrides their honesty with this subject.
Evolutionists will say that natural selection produced specified complexity in life...but life needs specified complexity for natural selection. How do they get around that predicament?
Thank you. Excellent.
Some people resist the idea that the universe was deliberately designed and created because they haven't given design any thought beyond: "If I admit design I'll be admitting God".
Many people have, however, given lots of thought to design, and, thank God, my own experience designing processes and developing software has given me a great foundation for understanding and synthesizing those ideas.
So, how do we verify whether something, or its constituents, was designed?
There are four main hallmarks of design that one can discern while examining a designed thing:
1) it's a functional arrangement of parts
2) its function and/or composition is comprehensible by multiple minds
3) its behavior is predictable
4) it's purposeful
These four are inextricably linked, though any one on its own would strongly indicate design, and any two or three or all four would definitely identify a designed thing.
-
1) it is a functional arrangement of literal and/or abstract parts.
E.g., Functional Information is, at its most abstract, a purposeful arrangement of concepts: purely abstract.
A hooch is a simple shelter composed of literal tree branches and the abstract knowledge that arranging them in a certain manner will provide shelter: so, abtract and literal parts.
So anything that does something useful and is composed of two or more parts was designed.
(This, of course, does not necessarily mean that a non-functional arrangement of parts was not designed. It could be purely decorative, or a work-in-progress.)
But wait, there's more, see 2, 3 and 4!
-
2) its function and/or composition is comprehensible by multiple minds.
If something can be comprehended by only one intelligent mind, it might be argued that that person is indulging in wishful thinking or this is a case of pareidolia (but if 1, 3 and 4 apply, comprehensibility by only one person would not invalidate the detection of design).
However, if many people can understand the functional arrangement of parts in similar ways and to similar extents, then there's no doubt it was designed.
Code breakers and SETI scientists depend on the principle that if a detectable pattern can be understood as valid information and used to produce predictable results, then its decryption was correctly done and it was designed by an intelligent source.
In other words, coded information transmitted, coded information received and accurately interpreted.
-
3) its behavior is predictable
This highlights specificity and uniformity of function. The functional designed object doesn't just do random things under random conditions. As comprehension of its functioning increases, it becomes clear why its doing what under various combinations of conditions, in response to various stimuli, in reaction to different stresses, etc.
That kind of specific functioning is only ever the result of foresight, imagination, reason, synthesization, critical thinking, and problem-solving, things that only happen or can be designed to happen in a designing mind.
Higher orders of design can be distinguished by how functions mesh with the performance of other functions or the functions of other things in the same environment or - denoting an even higher level of design - in timed concert with other functions or things to perform even other functions or achieve an even greater objective.
-
4) it is purposeful.
The functioning of a purposeful arrangement of parts strongly indicates design, and it also shows purpose.
How do we detect purpose?
Using some of the distinguishing faculties of that amazing God-given scientific instrument - the human mind:
Foresight, imagination, reason, self-awareness, self-knowledge, synthesization, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
What happens - sometimes over years of analysis, sometimes in a few milliseconds - when a human mind becomes aware of a deliberate arrangement of parts?
First, observation that it's composed of parts, i.e., more than one thing, physical or abstract, is involved.
Second, perception from experience that the arrangement is not random.
Third, realization that it can be interacted with in a useful way.
Fourth, recognition that it can be used to produce something, act upon something else or used to elicit an action from something else.
The development of such coordinated functioning only results from the activity of a designing mind that can establish a purpose, gather the prerequisites and then do what it takes to fulfill that purpose.
An example familiar to all persons is the human body.
Think of those systems and and parts that demonstrate *purposeful* arrangement by:
1) *functioning autonomically* to sustain your well-being and;
2) functioning *in concert* with other parts and systems and;
3) *functioning adaptively* as the environment changes and/or as your body develops and ages.
So, design can be detected, and verified.
Those who would still try to run from the facts may claim that it is our perceptions that give meaning to things, and the hallmarks of design identified above only appear to make sense because we are imputing that meaning to what we see, that's it's only "the appearance of design".
There are two ways to answer that conclusively:
a) the universe and all the functional things in it long preceded our ability to perceive and impute any meaning to them and functioned, as they still do, in the same ways; we're just discovering how they function.
b) our perceptions - as we can discern using the same hallmarks discussed above - were designed into human consciousness so that we could discover the meaning that is already there. Meaning that was designed into the universe so that we could discover it and thus, discover our Creator and his purpose for us.
I take it you’ve seen the Mandelbrot hypothesis…
1:09:38 this is where you turn to “divine missions” in Christian theology. The two historical divine intrusions (incarnation and Pentecost) provide a model of design.
I won seven nil england and predicted Harry kane to score first at 70/1 and rashford anytime at 90/1 and just 7-0 at 45/1 (3/5 winning bets) and then a few weeks later won six nil women's world cup germany and predicted Alexander popp to score first at 100/1 haha i might have done some calculations 😅 I felt like/knew it was an event that had to happen 👍 😊 I would consider the odds to be over 1000/1 but ahh well they need to make some penny's and set the odds
So....if there is a design, it follows that the MUST BE a designer????
Irreducible complexity. I absolutely believe in intelligent design. Observe Nature and it will become self-evident.
Loved listening to three great minds discuss important ideas with great clarity -- and the listener questions were also of very high quality. Great discussion!