Complex Specified Information

A few days ago this blogger posted on "Irreducible Complexity" (IC), which is most prominently promoted by Michael Behe. The other major concept in support of "Intelligent Design" (ID) is "Specified Complexity" (SC) - also called Complex Specified Information (CSI), which is most prominently promoted by William Dembski. The first part of this post will address this concept of CSI.

CSI

According to Dembski, CSI is intend to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. He states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by and intelligent agent. He argues that specified complex patterns can be found in living things and indicated some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence. He also argues that CSI cannot result from a combination of chance and necessity.

The concept of CSI is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complex theory or biology (sample of references here, here, here and here).

A study by Ellsberry and Shallit states that "Dembski 's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship and misrepresentation of others' results".

CSI critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontaneous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally (sample of references here and here) .

Evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers". (reference here)

Researchers are also using computer simulations to investigate artificial life. Jeffrey Shallit states:

The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claim about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.

Summary

Virtually all unbiased scientists agree that present-day organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor and that this is as well-established as any other fact of science. Studies in biochemistry and molecular genetics, far from weakening evolutionary theory, have broadened and strengthened the science of evolutionary biology. Pharmaceutical companies, the agricultural industry and epidemiologists base their findings on Darwinian evolution and not intelligent design theory or any other form of "creation science" because evolution is the best explainer of nature.

In the two decades since the concept of "Intelligent Design" (ID) was first presented, there have not been any rigorous tests proposed that could identify the effects of ID. (reference here and here) In addition, no peer-reviewed articles supporting ID have been published in any mainstream scientific journal. (reference here)

Essentially, ID has not been the subject of scientific research or testing as ID has not formed the foundation for any scientific process. Behe concedes, "You can't prove ID with an experiment".

-------------------

Bottom line, in this blogger opinion, if you are a denier of evolution, your thinking is no different than a Holocaust, Apollo Moon Landing or Heliocentric denier.