What Evolution Cannot Explain and the Church Must Not Forget
by Jack Hoehn
“ORIGINS” Sabbath School Lesson 9 tries to cover a lot of ground with pronouncements on extramarital sex, homosexuality, and advice on gender roles in human marriage. Perhaps we can refocus our attention on the amazing fact of sexual reproduction at all, and what that tells us about the Creator’s intentions with male and female.
EVOLUTION FAILS: TO ACCOUNT FOR SEXUALITY
In her 2005 book, evolutionary biologist Elisabeth Anne Lloyd, has exposed the inadequacy of the attempts by male Darwinists to explain an evolutionary justification for sexuality, especially the reason that evolution would create female pleasure in sex. She identifies 21 attempts to do so, but she debunks them all! Lloyd writes, “It may seem to be obvious that the female orgasm has an evolutionary function, but the obviousness of this conclusion must be reevaluated after looking at the relevant evidence. It turns out that no one has ever adequately shown a function for the female orgasm in increasing either fertility or reproductive success.” (1.)
While sexual reproduction of plants, animals, and humans obviously is a very clever, very useful, and very intelligent way to provide variety, vigor, and success to our offspring, it is mind-boggling to explain how this highly specified complexity could spontaneously arise without a Master plan requiring it.
Carl Zimmer wrote honestly: “Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster. For one thing, it is an inefficient way to reproduce…. And sex carries other costs as well…. By all rights, any group of animals that evolves sexual reproduction should be promptly outcompeted by nonsexual ones. And yet sex reigns…. Why is sex a success, despite all its disadvantages?” (2.)
The Intelligent Design view of created sexuality, is happily free of the necessity to have sexual pleasure a servant of reproductive success. ID and other creationists are quite able to accept this created and designed function as pure pleasure, just for fun, just for happiness, just because God loves women and wants them to have a good time.
The apostate Christian church turns creation on its head when it proclaims that the only function of sexuality is reproduction. Christianity is guilty of demonized steps freeing the pleasure of sex from reproduction. Being fruitful, multiplying, and replenishing the earth is a wonderful task given by the Creator to animals and man. But being one flesh, naked and unashamed cleaving is good and holy, even when having babies is either not desired, necessary, or possible.
CREATION TEACHES: THE CROWN OF CREATION – WOMAN
The Adventist doctrine of creation should remind believers that the creation narrative in Genesis does not suggest that man is the crowning work of God’s creation.
If you believe that God took seven days or that God took 13.8 billion years to prepare a place for us, it is a clear that His creative activities, days, stages, eras, steps were cumulative and progressive, he was getting ready for something with light, atmosphere, earth, plants, astronomy, water creatures, air creatures, land creatures, then Adam the naked human.
Each step was a preparation for advanced carbon based life, each chambered nautilus, tree fern, creeping thing, banana plant, herd animal, canine, chimpanzee and gorilla, was another step towards the crowning work of creation.
And one of the vital steps was the creation of sexual reproduction. This most unlikely method of reproduction, this complicated and reciprocal snag in the theory of undirected evolution, this completely unexplained complexity on Darwinian principles, was part of the preparation for what was to come. The naked man was a great step, made unlike the other preceding creatures in the image of God. But like the animals, very much in the need of his sexual partner.
After God made male and female apes, God made a man. But creation still had not reached its peak, its crown, its intended goal, until God made…. woman. (If you believe that man is the crown of creation because God made Adam first, then I suggest you might just as logically believe that the chimpanzee is the crown of creation, because God made the chimp before he made Adam!)
The Genesis creation story, if it says anything about gender relationships, should be clearly understood as saying that Woman was God’s crowning work. Women after the fall have been deemed inferior and subservient to men, but in Christianity women will be Re-deemed; Re-valued; Re-placed back in their original place, as the peak, the ruler, the Crown of Creation. First among equals? At very least equal for sure.
CREATION TEACHES: GOD ALONE WAS NOT ENOUGH
In a world without human rebellion and sin, God alone was not enough for the human. (3.) Adam had his Creator. He was uniquely created by YAHWEH Elohim. He conversed with Him and was given the pleasure of a task to do in identifying all the animals.
Adam was in the image of God, just as the apes were created in the image of man. And lemurs and bush babies were created in the image of apes. But even though Adam had the animals and Adam had God, it was not enough.
God knew that of course, but wanted Adam to know it too, wanted Adam to value what was coming next, wanted Adam to realize that he needed more than God. This naked man needed his naked and unashamed woman . And as the animals had been created first to serve him, Adam was created first to meet the needs and serve Eve.
How satanic that the Christian church began to forbid marriage. How unbiblical that she ever taught that, “It is very good and very spiritual for men to live without women, and women to live without men.” Bah! Humbug! Begone celibacy, monkery, nunnery.
How satanic that the Christian church men taught that, “It is God’s plan that women were created to serve the needs of men.” Bah! Humbug! B gone male chauvinism and male rulership; God’s original plan was female Queenship.
How satanic that it has taken the church 1,844 years since the Holy Ghost proclaimed through the lips of Paul, that in Christ there is no male or female before Adventism welcomed a female spiritual leader in Ellen White. How sad that not till 2,012 has our church begun to demand gender equality in ministry. Bah! Humbug! Begone “ordinationtruth.com”.
When our General Conference President is a skilled and capable woman administrator, perhaps this prophecy can then be fulfilled: “When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.” (2.)
Adventism should know all the truths that creation teaches—plants are the best food, the 7th day is the Sabbath, women were not created subordinate to men, and sexuality is not something that could evolve without an Intelligent Designer having a plan.
_____________________
ENDNOTES:
1.)Elisabeth A. Lloyd, ”The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution,” Harvard University Press, 2005, p. 1.
2.)Carl Zimmer, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea”, 2001, p. 230, 231.
3.)Ellen G. White, “Christ’s Object Lessons” p. 69.
Wow! I've never heard anyone but myself say this. I have said it more tongue-in-cheek than anything, intending to make a point about what I really believe, which is that God (neither He nor She, by the way) intended human male and female to be one flesh, and that one flesh is the head of the home and the head of creation. Way to go, Jack!
Duck!!
Actually, the existence of sexuality is its own best argument. It exists. Even if people find it difficult to "explain" that does not negate its existence. We know that many life forms "do it." And we know that many life forms don't.
There clearly are "patterns" of sexuality, as there are other "patterns" in nature. These regularities (though highly variable within limits and constraints) certainly indicate "design" of a sort. The fact that structure and function occur within some regularities implies that processes have operated that sustained and refined those regularities. There is a sense in which those processes can be thought of as designers. That is not really the same thing as the concept that "a Mind" engaged in a "top down" design process. I don't mind at all if you believe in top down design, but the claim that because some evolutionary biologists cannot agree on a consensus explanation of the adaptive value of sexual reproduction and behavior and pleasure, that prooves a top down ID, really is not very fulfilling.
In any case. I wish you well.
"LONG LIVE THE QUEEN", There is one in my home.
Joe, Joe, a circular defense of undirected evolution has me wishing you much better than that.
May I restate what you are suggesting to see if I understand your argument? Are you telling me that the existence of a fact of nature (sexuality) is itself its own argument that it evolved ? This seems blatantly circular and only makes sense to me if I start with the unchallenged supposition that nothing was designed and evolution explains everything. If I agreed with that metanarrative only then does the fact that Sexuality exists means obviously evolution did it we just don’t have any rational explanation how.
Well I don’t, and it doesn’t make sense at all. What am I missing from your argument?
As previously blogged, I understand that things evolve, change, adapt, mutate. But that unguided or even Theistic hands-off evolution can explain the origin of life; the major changes in life forms appearing suddenly then remaining unchanged for long periods of time; the multiple evidences of convergence where the same things happen in unrelated life forms with different mechanisms; and the complexity of so many things that even atheist evolutionists admit “appear to be designed;” all lead to a much different emotion in me than your statement that ID leaves you feeling not very fulfilled.
Set aside our feelings, and tell me how the fact that a complex and design rich, inefficient, uneconomic energy requiring, non-intuitive, but very fun and pleasurable form of reproduction exists, proved it evolved without a design or designer?
Joe, why not give ID credit for suggesting an answer that fits the evidence, even if not leaving you feeling fulfilled? I find it quite calming and reassuring myself.
Jack. Jack. No, I'm just saying that sexuality exists and that that is a fact. Human sexuality is a lot like other sexuality, but not identical, and with a fair amount of variability within our species. There are interesting parallels and differences with the animals most like us. And then there are lots of animals who reproduce asexually. It is all quite interesting and wonderful. There are many designs.
Maybe each was the invention of the Intelligent Master Designer. Of course you are free to believe that. Those who do, seem often to claim that a Designer is the only way a "design" or something organized in a way that functions can occur. I sometime wonder if such people have ever designed anything that did not work exactly as they intended the very first time they tried it out.
Those of us who have designed a lot of things have experienced things that worked as intended, things that did not work as intended, things that worked in ways we did not really expect them to (even better than hoped for), or were able to be refined through trial-and-error. Functionality can drive changes in design, at least with regard to inanimate inventions. Selective breeding demonstrates that pretty dramatic changes can occur in anmals, at least within "kinds," what ID folks sometimes call "micro-evolution." It is essentially, descent with modification. The modifications can be functional, although, artificial selection sometimes results in unwanted outcomes in addition to intended consequences.
Wallace pointed out to Darwin that what happens on purpose with animal breeding seems to also happen in nature (descent with modification). Darwin claimed to have already thought of that, but invited Wallace to coauthor the initial presentation of the concept. Essentially the idea is that environments impose some limits on what works (= functions). Sometimes there are permissive environments that allow emergent functions to flourish. This results in adaptation. Well, we could agree that it is "micro-adaptation," right? In descent with modification, populations of organisms change, at least somewhat. Revolutionary changes seem not to happen so very often. The principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" may be pretty old. And if environments rapidly change to the point of requiring major changes in organisms, the organisms may not have enough flexibility to survive.
To be entirely fair, I think you are correct in suggesting that there is some circularity in evolutionary explanations. That is, in part, because if something exists, it has survived. That indicates that it functions adequately. Attempts to explain why it survived may be accurate or not, and we cannot automatically distinguish among an array of after-the-fact explanations. Just because someone can provide a plausible explanation does not mean that the explanation is correct–whether the explanation is a natural or supernatural process (or even a combination of the two).
It seems to me that it might well be quite comforting to be confident of an Intelligent Design special creation. It might also be very uncomfortable to think that some random and purposeless process created us. But whether we are comfortable or not probably has nothing to do wiith what actually happened. Whether I "feel fulfilled" by an explanation probably has nothing to do with its validity. So, a better way of putting it would be that I do not see that ID suggests an answer that fits the evidence better than descent with modification, selection, adaptation, multiple sources of genetic/genomic variation, etc.
Joe,
“So, a better way of putting it would be that I do not see that ID suggests an answer that fits the evidence better than descent with modification, selection, adaptation, multiple sources of genetic/genomic variation, etc.”
How does the lack of intelligence or design suggest an answer that explains things or fits evidence better?
I do not see that there is a lack of inherent regularity and function ("design") or intelligence in organisms. I just don't see why some think it HAD TO BE injected from an external source. Even that is not a denial that it COULD HAVE BEEN injected by an external source. So I'm not saying there could not have been "intelligent design," although I have no idea how science could acertain that. I'm just saying that those who claim that ID is the only possible explanation are not really arriving at that conclusion using a scientifically valid process. And much of the time, there is a sort of pseudoscientific style that overstates the case for ID.
Joe,
So you do not deny innate intelligence or design. How did it come about?
Joe, regarding the "pseudoscientific style" of Intelligent Design writers, may I ask if you have read for yourself, or only book review of others of: Stephen Myers THE SIGNATURE IN THE CELL, or Michael Behe's DARWIN'S BLACK BOX or his THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION?
I do not consider those three books by ID scientists "pseudoscientific", and would be surprised if you would if you read them instead of reviews about them.
And neither do I consider the hundreds of ecolutionary "possible scenarios" attempting to explain how evolution might have happened, as "scientific". These "just so stories" have been effectively exposed by many evolutionary scientists of course, but they remain a powerful underpining of evolutionary dogma.
Sabbat shalom.
Jack, I second your recommendation to read Michael Behe's books and other publications. I have not yet read the Stephen Myers book, but will be glad to do so. It seems pretty clear that Behe is selectively quoted by many ID proponents, in ways that misrepresent what he thinks and tries to express. For example, please have a look at the following, from Darwin's Black Box (pp.5-6): "I have no reason to doubt that the the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms come from a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and I have no particular reason to doubt it. …I think evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Darwin's mechanism–natural selection working on variation–might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life." [I regret that I was unable to insert a paragraph break, I don't know why it would not take] His issue seems mostly to be with the origins of replicating chemicals, that is, the origins of RNA and DNA–not evolution after life began.
Should one be disposed to choose one's personal god, which one would one choose? Science and its Physics of the Earth, which has studied laws that give evidence of billions of years of micro adaptation & changes in living species, that life forms is by natural selection (of whom?), survival of the fittest, dog eat dog existence, no comforting peace or protection, no promise of tomorrow.It has not produced any proof of the origin of life forms, or any mighty micro changes of one species to another. Origin of life forms cannot be replicated in the lab, from nothing. Or would one be disposed to choose a god from a book called "Holy Bible", which has been reproduced many times any other book over the past 2000 years,, which has changed many lives of fear, of the unknown, of high moral value of life, which claims that it is "the Eternal Almighty God", which created all things, the heavens, the Earth, and all life forms. That He created man in His image, including a moral code of LOVE and HONOR, to God, and to his fellowman. The evidence He gives is, look to the heavens, they declare MY glory, and to the Earth, MY handiwork. This code of LOVE and HONOR, I give you, My pledge to keep my promise, to restore your soul, and you will be with ME forever. Your choice and or no choice.
Correction…..should read: or any mighty "macro"changes of one species to another.
Love and Peace to all.
From first glance at the Meyer book it is clear that its focus is also on chemical changes prior to the beginning of life. This prior to when "evolution by natural selection" is suggested to begin. So, much of the issue as indicated in these sources is not so much to do with processes of evolution as to the genesis of DNA and RNA. I get the sense from Behe that he is really only indicating that he thinks there must be a designer. He seems not to claim to be able to identify who the designer is. So, really, much of the effort has to do with complexity and regularity that he feels had to have been purposely designed. See the following from his other book, The Edge of Evolution (pages 71 & 72):
"Both humans and chimpanzees have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. There's no reason to doubt that Darwin hard this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives."
Hre, of course, he is writing about what are called "conserved" and "derived" characteristics. He focuses some on the issue of "random" mutations as the source of variation on which selection acts. As I have said elsewhere, this was also a problem I focused on 40+ years ago.
It is interesting that Peter Hitchens when asked about teaching of ID in schools had this to say:
"...As for my views on the 'teaching of ID', they can be summed up thus: I can't myself see how 'ID' could be taught as such. It is the opposite of Darwinism, in that it is a sceptical current, not an overarching and unified theory of nature…" http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/02/why-do-they-need-to-be-so-rude.html
He goes on to mention another point in relation to that, and then refers to Behe, but it seems to make a critical point: ID only gets its "life" in the debate by being an antagonist, not offering real answers in a unified theory.
The "unified theory" component is, I suspect, what Creationists attempt to add by selectively using ID arguments and placing them in the Biblical, Theistic model. Joe, I think these "selective" uses of Behe and the like that you suggest are driven by this Creationist agenda to capitalize on ID material. I would call a lot of it pseudo science, but even what is not, if there is any, is often used for purposes it was never intended for. Just like Behe's arguments against the origins of RNA etc are used against evolutionary processes after life began.
Chris, ID theorists do not wish ID to "be taught" in schools. We wish that ALL of science should be taught. The confirming evidence and disconfirming evidence. Students should know about of the huge gaps in the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion, the Angiosperm explosion, ect ect. Punctuated Equalibrium theory and WHY Gould devised it. ect ect. And we desire science should discontinue mixing theology with the teaching of evolutionary science. If you are interested in examples of this I will share them.
One Example:
DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, “A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found. Yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981
"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.
Example of mixing theology in science. These are endless. Here is one and you will get the idea.
National Academy of Sciences USA—that Darwin’s greatest accomplishement was to show how life’s complexity, “can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a creator or other external agent.” Darwin’s Greatest Discovery: Design without a designer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8573 (may 15, 2007)
Darrel,
If you mean examples of "mixing theology with the teaching of evolutionary science", sure, IF is it not too far off topic, I'd be interested, but please, your summaries, or brief, pertinent quotes – not endless, barely relevant stuff!
If you are offering examples of "disconfirming" evidence. If you can avoid using "absence" of evidence (eg gaps in fossil record) as your "diconfirming evidence", that may be interesting, on the same basis as above, and not too far off Jack's theme!
On a similar note. The Cambrian exp. etc, I am sure you would not suggest that uncertainty over scientfic explanations for its causes, triggers, constitute disconfirming evidence. So, again, if you are offering scientific evidence against scientific evidence, that may be interesting.
I have to confess, I have not seen much ID science, its usually just focussing on minutia that ignores the larger context of explanation and the big picture, and is usually of little "proof" or "evidence" value. The flagelum is a great example of this.
Oh my goodness… while I was writing my response, you have poured in "examples".!:(
Darrel, that last one, how on earth is that mixing theology with science? It saying there is no need to do exactly what you say it is doing!!
Chris, it appears to me that you don't seem to understand that saying "there is no need for a designer or creator" by evolutionists is not a scientific statement, but a theological or antitheological opinion. Darrell is saying, this is not science this is theology or atheology. This is a metaphysical opinion, not a scientifically provable fact. You ask below "How is that not obvious" I ask you, How is it not obvious to you that these kind of atheistic conclusion from scientists is religion, not science?
please read the note below I just wrote to Darrel.
Anti-theology is theology.
….so if I make the statement "Anti-science is science", it would make sense? Of course not.
You are basically trying to say the equal of a fundamentalist saying: "Mixing science with theology is bad", and that therefore theology is doing science!
If science rejects theology, because it is NOT scientific in nature, practice and aproach, that is NOT doing theology – it is avoiding theology. How is that not obvious?
So Chris, it is ok to discuss how science disproves God, but not ok to use science to show the evidence for God. Why???????
… Others here are better qualified on this, but it seems to me that science does not disprove God, it simply does not directly address the question. http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
By definition it cannot be applied to "God". However, by default it does end up making a statement about God because it very adequately shows the natural world for what it is. Natural, operating on very fixed laws, with no apparent "intervention" from outside the system. If there were/are interventions from outside, science cannot study such anyway. Not unless you can find some that are meaurable, quantifiable, testable etc. Have fun looking, I have and so far failed.
The only way science can be used as you want it to is as a pointer: Yep ID! but you have no choice Darrel, but to admit that even given a generous helping of science, it can never point more than a quivering step in the direction of the God you believe in. Oh how I wish you ID'ers would just accept that and stop using it to take you where it cannot.
I just cannot understand the intellectual integrity of people who stand on their dig and insist that ID is evidence for God. It is absolutely not, and if it points to a being or intelligence its character and nature is very suspect. I would almost prefer nature be its own cause than a "being" like it may suggest. It could be a "bloody" horrible one. Billions of years of death, blood, tooth and claw. We've been here before!
I actually see design in nature and the universe. I have sympathy with ID, but from my lay perspective I absolutely refuse to take that beyond what it says. It says nothing about a Biblical proportions God. Nothing.
Jack, I like your use of the word atheology. I was almost going to use the word atheological a while ago.
That is pretty much what science is. But that is a whole lot different to what Darrel is suggesting.
We are posting over each other, sorry. But let's get back to the issue. Joe suggested ID is largely pseudoscience. I challenged him for his evaluation of two leading ID scientists as I don't agree that their careful work is pseudoscience. It is science and questions the ability of Darwinian mechanisms to explain the cell and its DNA and other mechanisms, the basis of life. And Behe has carefully shown that although things evolve there are limits to the power of evolution which makes it insufficient to explain life as we know it.
Chris then says even Peter Hitchins a Darwinian critic, doesn't want ID to be taught in school. As Darrell correctly says, ID proponents do NOT want or suggest that creationism in any form or pseudo-science from creationists or evolutionists be taught in public schools, but they do want the full science including Darwinian scientific criticisms and major problems with naturalistic evolution to be taught in school, instead of the secular pseudo-religious belief that Darwinian explanations for life are adequate, proven, and beyond question, and have ruled out the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.
The issue of this week's blog is that the scientific fact of sexual reproduction is a criticism of Darwinian mechanisms explaining life. The pseudo-scientific proposals made using Darwinian theory to explan the origin and survival of sexuality in animals, plants, or humans are pathetic and inadqeuate even according to other evolutionists.
Clearly I am promoting an Adventist theology of creation, this is not a science blog. But I will not be able to accept the a-priori dismissal of solid ID science and thoughtful Darwinian skepticism as pseudo-science. That is pseudo-religion, not science.
Jack, I think you should read some of the criticisms of Behe. There are some serious flaws in his science. Serious. Same with your other guy.
Reproduction. I am still waiting for you to explain the female hyena. If you are going to use the complexity etc of one form of reproduction, you also need to take into account the bizzare and rather dysfunctional. Yes, hyena's survive, but it clearly suggests to me that nature is the designer, not some thought out, planned result! You're a doctor, I'm sure you could even improve out system. Us blokes sure find the prostate could be better designed!
Here's some examples for you Jack.
Deep sea Angler fish. Designed in the garden? Or undergone some pretty severe micro evolution?
http://mudfooted.com/deep-sea-angler-fish-bizarre-reproduction/
Bees exploding penis. Yes, he dies. I wonder if Adam was nervous for his first go after watching a bee? oh, that's right, no death in the garden. http://www.neatorama.com/2007/04/30/30-strangest-animal-mating-habits/
Male squids cutting the female. http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/2133978-squids-and-their-bizarre-reproduction-techniques-in-deep-oceans
Flat worms: Who can spear who? http://topyaps.com/top-10-bizarre-mating-rituals-found-in-nature/
And, Jack, if you are still reading. I have to share this one with you. It is one of the most horrible, creepy things, and I cannot imagine the intelligence that could have designed it!
http://twistedsifter.com/2009/09/tongue-eating-parasite/
Chris your Intelligently Designed prostate functioned elegantly and completely without symptoms and I hope with much joy and pleasure in your youth, it is only your lack of contact with the Life Tree withdrawn from earth that gives you problems now and progressively so. There is nothing in your intelligently designed body that would not be fine if we had access to the missing element that demands we now age and decay.
As for Hyenas? Healthy, wholesome, holy, fit Tree of Life eating unfallen humans moving out from their safe base in Eden as God's vice-regents would have been able long ago to weed out and destroy all the hyena like mutations and deformities in a Satan cursed and manipulated creation. Humans were meant to have dominion over nature and God's plan was for obedient, healthy, constantly refreshed humans in His image to make the rest of the world with hyenas, monsters, killers, cruel parasites, and other perversions of God's designs, to dissapear and for all nature to progressively become like Eden.
Don't blame God for the results of rebellion, disobedience, and tinkering with his designs. The smoker who gets lung cancer can't blame God for cigarettes. The non-smoker who gets lung cancer can't blame God for lack of the Tree of Life. Thankfully both of them may find healing in honest human efforts such as surgery, radiation, or medicine. Or if those are inadequate without a Life Tree, then in the post resurrection reaccess to the Tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations.
….oh dear. so now we have to explain the things that are not so nice, intelligent, and good in nature by invoking another completely a priori, undemonstrable, invisible, being. Design now points to two designers? A good one and a bad one? Bad one in control for a few billion years I suppose.
I used to hold a pretty much similar view once. Once I stopped allowing the Bible to dictate the way I saw and explained the world, and looked for actual evidence for these guys, I was shocked. Without the assumption that they exist, the evidence does not really suggest looking for them.
That does not mean there may not be some subjective reasons to believe there may be more than we can ascertain atm, but it does not justify making claims beyond that. In a moment I'll share a couple of experiences with you…
This may be OT, my apologies if it is too far so.
Some readers here may recall my experience with seeing what color the traffic lights would be ahead of time. This happened twice.
Two weeks ago we we took our boat out to the lake. As I got ready to leave, an image of a broken hydraulic hose, and oil going everywhere flashed into my mind. I thought nothing of it beyond my good imagination. As we launched from shore, there was a buzz in the pump and oil went all through the front cabin area:(
Just over a week ago, again, getting ready to leave, an image of a breaking part flashed in, again, dismissed as imagination. Mid lake, on a sharp turn, a bracket popped of with a bang. 3 Days to repair!
Last Sunday, before we began to get organized, an image of something square, some sort of vehicle, I thought boat, popped in, with the distinct impression someone was badly hurt. We didn't go.
Friday, my son was desperate to go, I was still worried and put it off. Another church family did go. Their son had a massive fall on his wakeboard, burst his eardrum, passed out in the water. Luckily his brother was in the water as well and saved him from drowing. Airlifted to Sydney and now doing well. Our ambulances here are a square looking van/bus. Food for thought.
We went out today. The only mishap was running out of fuel because we were having so much fun we forgot about how long we'd been going!
Coincidences? Perhaps. Some kind of connectedness? I suspect so. Do I see God or a Devil in it? Not really, because it is not evidence beyond the fact I cannot yet explain it. It would only be my pre held biases that would make me jump to conclusions that it was God. Why could it/should it, not be something else that we cannot yet explain scientifcally? Could also be coincidence.
Chris my Intelligent Designer has graciously made Himself quite visible, the intelligent destroyer has on the other hand has long tried with deception, subtrifuge, and dishonesty to blame the Designer for his behavior. If you are attempting to understand creation, yourself, good, evil without these insights, then you are on your own, and I am sorry. Worse than that I am afraid for you.
This blog is not written to help anyone understand life without letting the Bible dictate information, not otherwise accessible to you. Please reconsider that plan, it has never come out well.
The good news is you still can be shocked and disturbed by what you see in nature.
I hope you will accept this testimony of your soul that this is not the way it should have been. Begin there and go back to why you feel that. There is no evolutionary reason for you to object to anything that is, that is a distinctly image of God response.
You are free to ignore that you are in His image, but you are not able to function free of it. The best of us show it imperfectly, the worst of us still show it. Kindly moral atheists there surely are. Agnostics too. But give credit to those emotions, and the fact that they are in animals does not explain why animals have morality, or why we recognize it when they do……Sorry it is very late here, so this is a sign off for tonight.
Warm wishes to you both, Chris and Jack.
I should stay out of this discussion but I find it so fascinating I have to make a comment. Forensic scientiests have an aphorism: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In fact, there is lots of evidence for God and ID. The problem is how we interpret the evidence. For example. There is a huge debate going on in America over climate change. Some scientists interpret the evidence that humans are contributing to climate change. Other scientists interpret the evidence that humans are not bringing about climate change. Some will take what Jack is saying on human sexuality as evidence for a designer and others on this site interpret it differently. It is the same challenge with God. Some say there is evidence and some dismiss the same evidence as no evidence. I have just come across a very interesting site where a former atheist posts 6 reasons why she moved from non belief in God to belief in God. Again the evidence she cites can be interpreted in two different ways. For her, it was convincing enough to turn to belief. If interested read her six evidences: http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
I read with interest the "everystudent" link you provided, David. There will be some who are convinced by the reasons given. I imagine they will mostly be people who already hold those beliefs or are very suggestable and naive. Even so, it is not my place to cast aspersions on anyone's faith. Everyone is free to believe what they can.
The six reasons come from someone who indicates that she was formerly an atheist who was anxious to disprove the existence of God. Clearly there are those who have such an orientation and passion. That is unfortunate. When anyone is a little too sure they are right and everyone else is wrong, that raises red flags for me.
So, I come at the whole issue from exactly the opposite perspective of the person who wrote about her six reasons. I was a deeply committed adventist and Christian who worked to spread the good news about the message of Jesus to others. I passionately sought the guidance of the Holy Sprit. My doubts began as specific concerns about SDAs seemingly claiming to have a truer vision of Christianity and the world at large than anyone else. Some of the specifics seemed unnecessary and divisive and even un-Christian. And it all seemed to be much too complex for a message that really had to be accessible to anyone.
While anyone could accept the six reasons, surely none of them is critical knowledge.
Joe,
I understand about your relationship with Adventism. I have had to unlearn many things I was taught growing up Adventist. In fact, some people who know me well ask why I remain an Adventist. My reply: "Why should I leave one imperfect religion to join another imperfect religion?" There are no perfect people, no perfect beliefs, no perfect religion, no perfect non religion. Life is all about living with imperfection and whether one beliefes in a God or not. No one can make anyone believe anything. Unless we are truly mentally deranged we all have the power of choice. Choice to accept and choice to reject whatever evidence comes our way. And all evidence has to be interpreted.
I should have added one more point. In regard to God people go both ways. People like Bart Erhman who grew up with God have chosen to believe there is no God. People like C S Lewis and Malcom Muggeridge and many others who grew up with either no God or a very twisted view of God chose to move from non belief to belief in God. All have the same evidence. It is their choice to interpret it to substaniate the choice they made either for or against God. So there is nothing that anyone can do to "prove" God. Since the same evidence causees people to choose in opposite ways.
May I also mention that it would appear that both David and I share the same reason for staying in this "interesting" faith community. David said it so well: "Why should I leave one imperfect religion to join another imperfect religion." He and I can't agree on evolution, but at least we have this in common.
Erwin,
And I could add and why should I think that I should form my own independent church or religion and think it will be less imperfect?
David,
Again, we agree. (I am getting a little nervous with all this agreeing)
Erv
Yes, get really nervous (smile) you are really going to like my editorial in the next issue of Adventist Today. It's title: To Think Is To Question.
Timo
I agree. I do not believe that God ever intended us to have 28 formalized doctrines or even 5. You look in vain in the Bible for any systematized theology. Now we are getting off the subject of this blog so I will cease. However, a good blog would be: Do We Need Doctrine or Not?
David Newman,
I read the link too, and to agree with Joe's assessment.
There is just one other thing I would like to pick up on in what you said. It is this:
"All have the same evidence. "
I would really like to put an extra word in there: "All have access to the same evidence"
Last year in Sabbath School class a visitor was having quite a bit to say about creation issues, and some of the things he was saying began to sound familiar, and pennies began to drop, so I asked his name. When he told me, I said, "ah, didn't you write a book?". He fessed up! After church we had a good discussion, during which he said he was doing research on a geological aspect in USA for another book. At this I asked him what he knew about the evidence for the geologic column, particularly in the area he was researching. ie near North Dakota. He knew didn't know about that area at all. I then quizzed him on salt domes, the Gulf of Mexico, the Rift Valley, Dead Sea etc. His knowledge was scratchy on most of these.
My point is that yes, we all have access to the same evidence, but due to the limitations of interest, time, location, bias, etc we do not all use the same evidence. We don't know what we don't know!
So, as with your link above, philosphically, some of the arguments she uses may, being generous, have merit, but I would suggest only to people who have failed to avail themselves of a broad spectrum of evidence.
Little is said about her qualifications undergirding the assertions she has come up with to even give credibility to the possibility that she has a sound base of evidence up which to build her assertions. For that is what they really are.
You may be interested in a rather blunt refutation of her reasons here: http://www.ex-christian.net/blog/9/entry-27-marilyn-adamsonex-atheist-retard/
and here:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/11/15/six-reasons-to-believe-in-god.htm
… sorry about all the typos in that, should have edited more carefully…racing past puter…:(
David,
Parity is conserved or it is not conserved. One can frame the disproving of the Law of Conservation of Parity in the falsification paradigm. When the results of the experiments are out the physics community in general accepted the verdict of the experiments. May be that is why some call physics an exact science.
One reason why climate ‘science’ and evolution ‘science’ do not have universal acceptance, I think, is that evidences of any experiment or lack of experiment are subjected to interpretation. Proponents of a particular view point tend to spend their energy as evangelists rather than evaluating of the adequacy and interpretive nature of their evidences which are often accepted with faith and conviction sometimes against all odds when the laws of probability are ignored.
To stay in a denomination for lack of an alternate perfect entity certainly is energy saving. The positive contributions and accomplishments of the denomination despite some doctrinal imperfections should be a more positive reason to stay.
Chris: I am off to make a couple of hospital calls (although retired I still do pastoral ministry).and I will read those links when I retlurn but a quick work
You make a good point about having access to the same evidence. But my main point still stands. For that lady the six reasons she cited were enough to turn her from non belief to belief in God. It will be different for each person. Malcolm Muggeridge and CS Lewis and I could cite many more found enough evidence to bring them to faith in God.
And my other point still stands. If a person does not want to believe there is no evidence, access or otherwise, that can make them believe. A great example are the Jewish leaders. A few of them, like Nicodemus, came to believe in Jesus, and many of the priests did but the key Jewish leaders would rather bribe Roman soldiers to tell a lie than tell the truth. Because the truth did not suit their interests. Even hardened Roman soldiers reportling their experience of the resurrection of Jesus did not convince the Jewish leaders to put their trust in God.
And another point I have made before still stands. We all live by faith. The only question which is a more reasonable faith. Again we have the choice to believe that a God who always existed crerated the universe or a nothing that has always existed created the universe or whatever variant you would like to use. Either option takes faith and only each person can make that choice.
Philip
Of course, of course. I agree.
David,
"For that lady the six reasons she cited were enough to turn her from non belief to belief in God. "
Totally agree. From her perspective they are enough. However, we know nothing about the scope of her research or study in accepting those reasons as enough. There may well be a raft of data she neither considered nor knew about. They are effectively her personal testimony, and that is fine, as long as others realize that.
Now, re the person who does not want to believe. The key word is "want" to believe. You are correct. If a person does not want to believe, they will not. Regardless of evidence. This is true of anyone who holds a position out of stubborness.
I do think it is important to keep in mind that many of us do want to believe. In fact some of us have searched desperately for the evidence that would defend our faith/belief position. It is not a matter of not wanting to. We are forced by reason to believe what we did not want to believe.
Now, your last point on faith. Once again, you have gone back to the wrong basis: "God always existed", or "The Universe always existed", and use this to make the claim "we all live by faith".
If you are using faith in this sense: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, then I do not live by faith. If you mean having faith the sun will get up tomorrow, then, yes I live by faith.
*I don't know if or how God just IS, came to be, or does not exist, and hold no fixed view.
*I don't know how the universe came to be, and hold no fixed view.
*I don't know how the laws of nature came to be, and hold no fixed view.
*I don't know how life came exist on earth, and hold no fixed view.
To hold a firm belief about these issues would amount to a faith statement, although some theories may hold a lot more merit than others!!
*That life on this earth as we know it has come through an incredibly long time of an evolutionary process is a belief built on rafts of logical proofs and material evidence. It is not a faith statement.
David, please, stop using the unknown starting point as the decider of the end point. Just because a "faith statement" may be required for either starting point (God/Universe) does not mean that the outcomes of each position continue to require the same degree of "faith".
Let me illustrate:
Belief in God seems to require faith statements from end to end, or start to finish. What is there about God's existence, presence, plans etc that does not require faith? All are assertions based on no logical proof or material evidence.
Belief in evolution is built on massive amounts of data. Fossil record, inter species commonality, retroviruses, genes, and the list goes on and on. There are unanswered questions, yes, but the data is there. So, the end point, the outcome, life as we observe it is a powerful argument for an evolutionary process. No faith needed. Read backwards from today:
Which starting point looks most likely? Therefore, which one is the most attractive "faith statement" of beginnings?
Well, Christians who have made up their minds that their view is correct and don't want to believe anything else will not believe anyway! We should not "want" to believe anything in particular. We should want to follow the evidence: All of it.
Many excellent points here. All participants seem to be quite honest about their positions. And we agree on much. I really like the last statement by Chris. "We should want to follow the evidence. All of it." While some may see me as a "godless evolutionist," I have made sure that I did not simply substitute one religion for another. This leaves me being skeptical of pretty much all the evangelists, whether religious or scientific. I'm all for following the evidence.
Now, for Darrel and Jack's sake, let me add something about ID
In a sense your assertion that there is Intelligent Design in nature is looking at the "end point", or outcome and reading back from there. That has merit as long as you don't stray from your chosen path by invoking something outside of nature to read into nature. The Bible!
Seems to me that David likes to begin with the "faith statements" at the beginning, then tries to pull the wool over our eyes that either outcome requires equall amounts of faith, and having done that proceeds to the assumption that because faith was needed all the way, having faith in the Bible is validated.
You guys begin at the outcome, read design in nature and then superimpose the Biblical God on nature, and use this to suggest that faith in him is justified because nature shows a design/er. I simply say; stick with the science you pretended to begin with. Nobody needs to live by faith in our world. If we don't have an answer…let's find it, not make it up unfalsifiable theories like a devil and a god having an argument.
"Life is all about living with imperfection, whether one believes in God or not." [from David, above,slightly edited, with no change in meaning]
Yes, I think that is what is sometimes called, "tolerance for ambiguity." Many of us who were raised as adventists were raised with little tolerance for ambiguity. There was always an ultimate authority and explanation, and, ostensibly, we were right and everyone else was wrong. I imagine that most of us who were honest in our quest for greater understanding found ways of becoming more tolerant of diverse evidence and opinion, whether we stayed in the church or left.
I agree with David and some others that there are people, plenty of them, who substitute one rigid religion for another, regardless of which direction that happens. There are people who are "true believers" in evolution and/or atheism, just as there are "true believers" in a religion and a God. This sort of "rote" and "reflexive" unquestioning perspective is apparently quite satisfying to some, and I suppose that should be respected. It is, of course, easier to respect this unquestioning faith in those whose positions most agree with our own.
At the same time, I find some of the "evangelical" atheists as hard to take as anyone, in part, because they resort to some of the same lapses in reason and tolerance as those who they rail against–including use of ridicule. I'm pretty much committed to examining evidence and seeing where it leads, without incorporating it into tightly held belief unless that is warranted–that's what I keep repeating about holding knowledge gently and tentatively.
Chris
You and I face a great challenge. I don't believe we have ever agreed on anything. It is as if we are travelling on two parallel highways waving to each other but unable to hear what the other is saying. That is why I have gone back to the very beginning and even there you are evasive. You write,
*I don't know if or how God just IS, came to be, or does not exist, and hold no fixed view.
*I don't know how the universe came to be, and hold no fixed view.
*I don't know how the laws of nature came to be, and hold no fixed view.
*I don't know how life came exist on earth, and hold no fixed view.
Yes, you do hold a fixed view. You are clear that you don't know. That is a faith statement. And that brings us to the nub of the whole issue. You are defining knowledge in a very limited way. You have left out half of what knowledge really is. David Marshall is a professional philosopher. He writes, "Scientific evidence is always based on at least three kinds of reasonable but fallible faith: trust in the mind, in the senses, and in other people. None of these can be proven–to use the mind to prove mind is to argue in a circle. And the senses might be wrong." To take an extreme example. We might be living in a virtual reality like in the film the Matrix. We have no way of knowing that what we see is real or is being manipulated by some other power. But we believe, trust, have faith, that our senses our our own. But they might not be.
He goes on to write, "The idea that science is the only valid way of finding out things is called positivism. Among those paid to think carefully, this view has fallen out of favor, partly because it disproves itself. Why believe that only truths grounded in scientific evidence are worth believing?That idea itself can't be proven scientifically!"
Now I am not a philosopher but I have become very interested in this subject because it shows that there are two ways of knowing and the scientific method is only one way. And I am trying to understand what philosophers say about the other way of knowing.
Lastly, I totally disagree that there is no evidence for God. There are millions of us who believe in God because we have seen the evidence. Evidence you do not recognize because you only wear one set of glasses. And just saying there is no evidence by your definition does not make it so.
Marilyn Adamson gave some great evidence for her faith. You just do not like her interpretation of that evidence. She saw it and I see it as scientific, after all science provided that information. So Chris, again we seem to reach an impasse. I wish that was not the case but with no common ground our discussions are fruitless.
Joe, your last comment is one of the most reasoned and balanced posts on this blog. I wish I had written it. You are right that militant relionists and militant atheists discredit each of their respective viewpoints. As I wrote to Chris I have recently become very interested in philosophy. I was never raised with philosophy. I have read very little in this discipline but I now understand that it is the foundation of all disciplines. And I believe that part of the conflict on this website is because both sides have read little in philosophy and do not understand that it is needed to make true sense of all the other disciplines. So I think I am going to refrain from comments about science and religion until I become a little more update on philosophy. I believe this will help me communicate more effectively in the future because I am certainly no doing a very good job right now.
David, thank you for your kind words. I think we do benefit from some exposure to epistemology, and, for scientists, of course, "philosophy of science." Becoming more aware can be helpful regarding the historical background of what some philosophers came up with and how influential their writings were on politicians and public policy.
Of course, philosophers have arrived at all sorts of different answers, and debates among them continue. Careful and critical thinking are certainly important. I get a little frustrated, however, with the notion that questions can be definitively answered just by thinking about them. I am inclined to favor a strong injection of reliable and valid empirical evidence. My biggest frustration with philosophy is how commonly weak or false premises are invoked that lead to conclusions that had been reached in advance.
David, I'm looking forward to meeting you in person. Warm wishes.
Oh well, at least we ended up agreeing on something – we agree we don't agree:)!
Guys, I am just wondering if there is common ground IF we begin reasoning from the foundation, instead of reasoning backwards to it?
Without sounding trite, what is the foundation?
"Common Ground," I mean in that do we agree that this is the logical place to begin? And not meaning that we ignore what's above, but start where it started in both Biology and in Cosmology.
Chris: Wow. Agreement finally. (warm smile)
And pray tell, might Mr. Lindensmith suggest exactly what would be that foundation?
Biology and Cosmology? Darrel, aren't they your favourite playground for finding ID?
i submit the supernatural is another dimension involving Earth people. What evidence do i have? It's noted effect on me personally. i'm able to quote, many times, the deep impressions that formulated something significant to me, such as directions & actions & or warnings, and of messages for others. i have related some of these events in other blogs here. Lately i've received impressions of concern that are of one of the bloggers here. Some of the strongest warnings & happenings i received in the past, were when i was still winging it in worldly living. i was not a member of any religious group. In sequence, each impression received was followed by an event or action, more ominous than the preceding ones. This culminated in a life threatening event of imminent death, and while lying in dreadful fear, a voice spoke to me, "earl, i've tried to get your attention for many years, but you have denied me, this is the last time you will hear from me unless you come to me for life." i responded by pleading for my Saviour not to ever leave me. i confessed my sins & carelessness in my life. Within an hour, i was on my way to recovery. You can rationalize away this happening as imaginary, or weakness of character, whatever. That was 43 years ago and i've never been the same since. I hear or feel the presence of God leading me every day. Instead of running helter skelter, foolishly, wrecklessly, wasting my life in hedonistic pleasures, i follow my God.
As you see, Chris & Joe, its impossible for me to deny my Lord. i wish to learn all i can of the life of man, but the dimension of supernatural existence is a reality in my life.
Earl, thank you for sharing with us your experience. You have had powerfully convincing personal experience that I would never ask you to deny. I have very warm feelings toward you, and regard you as my friend and brother. Wishing you well.
Well, Dr. Taylor, I would think the foundation must be the beginning–where things start. The American Chemical Society recently had a whole issue on this —Accounts of Chemical Research –about the puzzle of life's chemical origins.
It dealt with the latest theories and research in the field, and several of the articles address fundamental problems in certain models of origin-of-life research. For example, a paper by Benner et al. points out that the RNA-world model is unattractive because the chemical bonds involved are unstable and the reaction requirements are too specific and unlikely for an early Earth environment.
Another article addresses a possible solution to nature's preference for left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars, this is known as homochirality. This is a HUGE problem for a naturalistic approach.
A couple of papers try to explain why DNA is composed of the particular bases A, T, C, and G. Several others discuss self-replicating systems. Another paper discusses how proto-cells may have been formed from lipid micelles. And still others assume an "RNA-first" world, while a few prefer a "metabolism-first" world.
The editors define chemical evolution as including "the capture, mutation, and propagation of molecular information and can be manifested as coordinated chemical networks that adapt to environmental change." In this type of system, one in which information-carrying molecules must be made and propagated, the editors concede that building life from the bottom up requires some aspect of "molecular intelligence:" Interesting words:
One of the fundamental research problems in chemical evolution is the transition from non-life to life."
In order for this bottom-up–parts-to-whole approach to work, there is some threshold that must be crossed that sets in motion the operations of a cell (or a proto-cell) such that it has the characteristics of a self-sustaining, living "issue of the journal will focus on deducing the rules for constructing an organism from the bottom-up. The authors will do this by using what alreidy know about DNA and RNA to construct system using known chemicals and enlisting the help of chemists to guide the reactions where they see fit to do so. But this calls into question just what is meant by "self"-assembly. In materials science, self-assembly is usually regarded as repeated, ordered patterns of specific molecules under the right environmental conditions. The setup for making even a simple self-assembled system (e.g. a self-assembled monolayer) requires quite a bit of forethought and planning on the part of the chemist.
The RNA-first world is the place most begin,metabolism-first world, not wso much. The RNA-first camp believe the first biomolecules were nucleotides (adenine, uracil, cytosine, and guanine), while the metabolism-first camp believes the first biomolecules were amino acids (e.g., glycine, alanine, thiamine). Life (God) chooses only left handed amino acids. 50/50 in the environment with no nature way to separate them.
The RNA-first camp assumes that ribozymes were key players in the formation of the first genetic code. The metabolism-first camp relies on the self-assembly of biomolecules to form the first protein. All this research has been hopeless because chemicals Can Not make the digital codes of basic information that even the simplest life needs to get started.
I see you conclude that "All this research has been hopeless because chemicals Can Not make the digital codes of basic information that even the simplest life needs to get started." What if you turn out to be wrong about this? Will it destroy your faith? It is not necessary to belief in a Creator God to specify what It could or could not have done or how It accomplished an origin to life. Isn't the information generated by such research interesting and valuable in its own right? You seem to regard it as some sort of conspiracy to disprove God. I do not see it that way. Surely the concept of, and faith in, an omnipotent spiritual being can survive examination of the building blocks of life and their natural history.
Well, Joe, yes theories make predictions. The god of deism could survive falsification regarding Intelligent Design I suppose. I do not see it at all as a conspiracy to dispove God when evolutionists attempt to falsify or prove the theory of spontanious generationl. I think they realize the theory stands or falls at this foundational level. But not only here, but if evolution could demonstrate anywhere that mutation and selection produced new information (not new function, which it can) but new information.
For example, also basic–Eukaryotics through mutation developing a new organ(s) making them male and female, so that evolution can continue as it must have. This switch to sexual reproduction must have happened many times in natural history we are told. Getting the creation of all the organs involve must go correct the first time or "no children for selection to select."
Are you KIDDING? Every SNP is new information. Enormous amounts of new information occur all the time. And, sometimes, there is emergent function. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist. It just takes an open and inquisitive mind that can consider new information.
Sorry Joe, I miss spoke. Not Shannon Information. Was refering to new code producing new organs.
You do not see that small changes in the short run can lead to large changes in the long run. And I appreciate that one of the reasons you do not see it is because you do not wish to see or admit it.
J. David, you asked: "In fact, some people who know me well ask why I remain an Adventist. My reply: "Why should I leave one imperfect religion to join another imperfect religion?""
When I was baptized almost seven decades ago, I had no doubt that I was joining the least imperfect church in the world. This conviction remained rather strong until the Adventist church shifted its position from pro-life to a pro-choice one.
For three months I worshipped with the Seventh Day Baptist church, until I discovered that they were not pro-life either; which forced me back to the Adventist community. I wish there was a church who is still faithful to all Ten of the Rules the Lord gave to humanity. Unfortunately, such a church does exist any longer.
Nic, the church Christ founded has always existed, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. But this church is not founded on doctrinal fidelity or obedience to any law except two. Denominations have been raised by God to chasten or encourage the church, but Denominations have never been the church, just servants of the wider church. Adventism exists to serve other churches and witness to none Christians. I do not belong to it because it is perfect, but because God has called me to this form of His and His church's service. I hope you will continue to serve your Adventist fellow servants, and the wider Christian community with insights God has placed on your heart.
I am reading your extensive posts in the context of attending the Memorial Service for Morris Venden this morning. He preached his own funeral sermon (recorded and played from the last time his severe neurological disintegration permitted him to preach), and it did my heart much good to hear his capable and winsom presentation of the fact that all of us will soon be dead; than the life gift we all have is inexplicable apart from a Lifegiver; that friendship with Jesus gives us eternal life now and makes what we call our soon to be accomplished death, not death but sleep.
All who hold science dear, be sure you hold Jesus dear, and He is holding you dear, is my prayer for myself and for each of you tonight, as we all teeter on the edge of the end of this brief existence. Don't trade the something of life for the nothing of a meaningless science restricted life. Your mind and emotions know there is another demension beyond science, or there should be. Give in to that please. Don't give up your scientific knowledge, but don't give up on where science can't take you.
Elder Venden's own funeral sermon is available, and I'd suggest any who can to take a moment in remembrance of this giant preacher of righteousness by Jesus to view it again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYj-llqPmVo
It is quite obvious here in the Bible that Eve was non-existent prior to her arrival on the scene and this being without the aid of any sexual reproduction taking place at this stage. In other words both of them weren’t ‘born’ in terms of a prior pregnancy which was a result a reproductive process [1Cor 15:45]. After all, there is no indication of a ‘baby Adam’ or a ‘baby Eve’ in these verses [1Tim 2:13]. Again, as can be seeing here – another good example of the direct conflict between evolutionism and creationism, when considering the absence of sexual reproduction in contributing to their arrival. They simply aren’t compatible. To me, the ‘death before sin’ belief that Theistic Evolution subscribes to emerges in this discussion as Adam and Eve weren’t born with a sinful nature as we are [1Cor 15:21-22][Gen 2:17][Rom 6:23] but they were, after all, created perfect and without any knowledge of sin [Rom 5:12][Rom 15:14].
This would apply to Adam too [Luke 3:38] because evolution would imply that he would have not being created at this stage due to his millions of years of transitional stages before he was pronounced 'very good' by God [Gen 1:27-28]. The bible only refers to one man being created first and not a single other compatible soul (woman) around for sexual reproduction to take place [Gen 2:18]. If Adam was the only one of his kind, even without a suitable match for him for sexual reproduction to occur, then it is clear that no evolutionary processes were involved here. How then can sexual reproduction (which is a rather nifty system designed by God) have any part of both Adam and Eve’s existence? They weren’t test tube babies after all!
[Rom 5:12, 14, 17-18]
Reproductive systems in both male and female are designed quite well and are perfectly matched for procreation, sexuality, and pleasure. My understanding of this is that the act of copulation is based on a positive feedback system which drives the desired outcome with increasing instability until climax is reached and then a return to stability. It exists as a complete package and it gets rather difficult to see how such a well-designed process could have evolved without all the necessary hormonal ingredients, organs, fittings and processes in place. Superb design and an immense amount of intelligence would have to go into such a super complex system. A wildcat-wildcard evolving reproduction system would hardly qualify as sufficient to drive such a process. The creation account makes no reference to an evolutionary process involved in the process of conception and childbearing. God formed man and woman with just the right stuff to make sexual reproduction work right from the start. Praise God!
I think that’s why God is so particular about sexual immorality and perversion of what he has created and instituted. Prior to Eve’s creation God said that it was ‘not good’ for man to be alone. Then upon her arrival that was no longer the case – Praise God! – It was good!
It should be noted that in order for successful sexual reproduction to occur, God didn’t create Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve. Same sex unions or marriage isn't evident in God's plan concerning sexual reproduction. Perhaps this is another conflict that creationism has with evolutionism.
Jack, thanks for mentioning Morris. One of his cousins was an academy classmate of mine, and a dear friend. I knew Morris as a loving, gentle, inspiring person. Clearly he touched many lives in positive ways.
22OCT, Reproduction, including sexuality, is widespread across life forms. There is little basis for claiming that the range of patterns in humans is dissimilar to the patterns in other animals. Is this evidence of common design and/or common descent? In any case, yes, I agree that it is quite wonderful….
I vote for Common Design and a very uncommon Designer. This truth is crystal clear throughout the Bible from the first page until the last one!
cb25
You said something about wanting to believe. I would like to take that to its logical conclusion (to me). What if you found that it worked in your daily life? If we don't know the truth about life, why not choose our desire–what will bring the most peace, love, kindness, and contenment in our lives. What may help us live longer in this current world; what will make us more tolerant and accepting of others–choose the best. My life has certainly been better as a believer in God and a follower of Jesus. I wasn't born with perfect genetics. And working on our weaknesses is a struggle.
One can start with accepting the "incredible" Bible stories as metaphors and asking what they mean in our daily lives. Whether one changes that idea or not, it helps our spirit as does experimenting with a reasonable prayer.
What will knowing the "truth" of evolution mean to us in the long run? Nothing, that I can see. One may think it helps by explaining life's randomness, but this comes at a toll. Such a belief will never matter at the end anyway if it is true, but it could influence your life now in a negative way. I am jsut speculating how I would feel, and maybe you will not agree. God bless.
Ella,
Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate their positivity.
Wanting to believe:) I guess the problem here is that I think we do "…know the truth about life…" The truth being that we are here as a result of an evolutionary process and share common ancestry with every living organism on the planet.
Now, as strange as it may sound, apart from the concept of a "next" life, I now find life more peaceful, loving, and contented than ever before. I have an immense respect for nature, that I could not have even begun to understand before, and a wonderful sense of freedom to be fully human.
The only "toll", I find is that my evolutionary views are a thorn in relationships with those who hold conservative views. Otherwise, I am free from guilt, struggle, doubt etc, and I think I respect others more, and am more tollerant. Some may not think so from how I write here at times I know:(
Just an hour or so ago I watched a short interview with Sir Richard Branson. It was so refreshing. He talks about his view of God and evolution, and so much resonated with me. I'll paste the link below.
Re the "next life". Well, I have immense respect for nature, and what is; a God worthy of worship and respect will not judge us negatively for not responding to evidence that was not there. I respond according to what is there, and if there is a next life, I have no doubt I'll see you there. If she/he/it is behind the nature I stand in awe of, then my respect for nature will have not been misdirected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=xe–92E3_fA
cb25, you wrote: "The truth being that we are here as a result of an evolutionary process and share common ancestry with every living organism on the planet."
This means that you are setting aside what the Lord revealed to us through his prophets and through Jesus Christ while elevating the opinions of men over those who received revelations from above. I find hundreds of references to the doctrine of creation in the Bible. All these statements evidently mean nothing to you. Are you sure you have made the right choice regarding the value of Scripture?
cb25
Thank you for your kind reply. I resonate with your view of nature. The Canadian Rockies seem like the most holy place on earth. I long to see mountains again and experience their peace and quietness. I relate to God in those places and also in animals; they are more intelligent than we imagine. I don't think I would appreciate nature in such a spiritual way if I thought mountains and the trees and flowers around them weren't made to be beautiful.
Your attraction to nature certainly shows you are a spiritual person. Enjoy it. All the information in the world about science and theories, isn't that valuable to the human spirit. Taking apart a bird to see how it flies isn't as awesome as seeing it in flight. Taking apart a flower destroys its beauty.
In the end we won't be sorry we didn't work harder, read more about origins, geology, etc. Relationships will be the most important part of living. Faith is about relationships.
Life is full of paradoxes–faith can be a beautiful thing, bringing hope and peace; religions can also be toxic and destroy beauty and peace. I think there is a choice in that somewhere.
I like this quote by Jim Wallis, a social worker/philanthropist/writer:
"From the perspective of the Bible, hope is not simiply a feeling or a mood or a rhetorical flourish. Hope is the very dynamic of history. Hope is the engine of change. Hope is the energy to transformation. Hope is the door from one reality to another… Hope is believing in ispite of the evidence and watching the evidence change."
Darrel,
This is for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhdUp4JOHwg
Joe, your graciousness is noted by all here. You are indeed a fine gentleman. Continually displaying the fruit of the Spirit. Your empathy is a model for us all. Thank you.
Thank you for the link there Chris. Now Chris, I know that you are a very intelligent person, so I must assume that the agruments against Intelligent Design in your clip have only commical appeal for you.
I can't believe you think that sordonic 'reasoning' is valid. Right?
Chris, I have to agree with Darrel. If this is the best you can come up with it is rather pathetic. Let's take out the word design and insert intelligence. So the log rolls (for those who did not watch the video, the rolling log led to our cars today) but it would keep on rolling for ever unless some intelligence saw what could be done with it. Randomness will never create a car. The video was actually saying, without intending to, that intelligence is required for evolution to take palce. It assumed that given enough time complexity and order can arise. But there is no proof of that, none at all.
Chris, I have viewed this Youtube. You have used several very English/Aussie/NZ type words to describe things that were rediculous to you in your previous blogs.
The logical nonsense that "because designed things like clocks and cars are different means there is no such thing as design", would fit most of those colorful denigrating adjectives I have previously noted in your blogs! Please apply the best of them to this nonsense. Every single example, including the nicely formed and intelligently designed rolling log, is showing things that are obviously designed, selected, and applied by intelligence as opposed to randomness, by agents capable of thinking about the past and the future, and adjusting intelligently to them. There is no randomness, no raw survival benefit, no undirected chance at all in any of the steps. Treacle, tripe, pfuffle, you are offering us "a raw prawn," if you expect us to think this adds anything to the strength and seriousness of the fact of intelligent design in nature. And in cars, clocks, and nicely designed tree trunks…..
cb25 – see above
Well, I got the reaction expected. It was a fun look at the issue. However, I think you miss its depth. You are also way off the mark when you want to add "intelligence" to the equation vs your randomness.
True. Randomness will never create a car. But we are NOT talking about inanimate objects! We are talking about living things in an environment that applies pressure, or cause for change upon those things. Natural selection is the "intelligence" you are ignoring. The changes within organisms by mutation, change etc may be "random", but the opportunistic application of them within the environment is no less real.
A human saw a log roll, had a need, applied the log – an invention was born. A mutation occurred, an environment/need/niche existed – a variation survived. No intelligence needed in its formation, just a coincidence of variation and opportunity. This is not to say intelligence was not a factor in survival.
You say: "…designed, selected, and applied by intelligence as opposed to randomness, by agents capable of thinking about the past and the future, and adjusting intelligently to them."
No.
* A mutation or change happens, (random or not is beside the point);
* it is "selected" by its environment (survives or does not)
* it is applied by a life form (adjusting intelligently. according to its scope to try to survive)
* within a suitable environment, it goes on to make more "rolling logs". (reproduce).
That is how natural selection occurs in design, selection and application! Animate, living "objects" intelligently responding to the random opportunities of mutation and change within the opportunistic environment this world offers.
The weirdness of the youtube article was an insult to intelligence. Its content would only appeal to atheistic leaning people, certainly not to the masses, and intelligence is also found in the masses, believe it or not!!
Most are not contesting random mutations of kind in kind. Those believing in ID, are contesting the origin of the very first smallest particle of living forms. This blog has now reached the ridiculous. No minds changed. Agree or disagree, no malice. Next.
Jack can correct me if I'm wrong, but this blog was never about the question of "the origin of the very first, smallest particle of living forms". It was about an aspect of the evolutionary process.
Chris: You write, Jack can correct me if I'm wrong, but this blog was never about the question of "the origin of the very first, smallest particle of living forms". It was about an aspect of the evolutionary process. That is true but it was you who posted the You Tube video about ID. It was not about Jack's topic. So please do not react if we wonder where you live when you feel that "we missed the depth of the video." And you write,
"True. Randomness will never create a car. But we are NOT talking about inanimate objects! We are talking about living things in an environment that applies pressure, or cause for change upon those things. Natural selection is the "intelligence" you are ignoring."
But here is your HUGE leap of faith. You are assuming that the same processes applied to the inamimate objects from which you believe life came. But how can you say natural selection applies to pre-life. Since there is no intelligence yet how can it select what will work? You make far more faith statements than those of us who differ with you.
Chris, perhaps you're correct re: the exact aspect of this blog. It seemed applicable to get to the primary
aspect of evolution, ie: Are the initial life forms, happenstance, or of intelligent design. That is the crux of
the matter, the most important answer sought by man. Is it not? And the status quo is "no one knows for
certain", the answer, that will satisfy all living souls.
David,
Sure, I know what Jack's topic was, I was simply responding to Earl when he identified ID focus as origins. Jack, as I understand it believes in ID, and his blog was not about origins. That is all I was saying.
Yes, I was OT in that I put an ID topic up, but it was not as far off topic discussing ID as compared to evolutionary processes, because Jacks blog was about that theme. ie explaining reproduction. And I did not start the ID topic here, not that I recall anyway.
"Since there is no intelligence yet how can it select what will work?"
The log rolls down the hill doesn't it?
Seriously. If you put 100 loose nuts and 100 bolts in a tumbler and tumble it for 1 hour, you WILL have several pairs of nuts threaded onto bolts. Do the same with paper clips and you will have several paper clip chains. Why? Random events within the tumbler taking advantage of the shape, motion and proximity to one another to produce order by selection.
We do not know how life formed, but given an environment where suitable ingredients are in the tumbler (earth environment) with shape, environment and proximity we cannot say that the first simple cell/living organism could not have formed.
Based on the natural laws we see operating in this world in how things operate this is not such a leap of faith. ie it is congruent with how we see the world operate. However, if you want a real leap of faith, just imagine that a God, with all the "omni.." qualities, just happens to be. We think in cause and effect, and you cannot imagine life being preceeded by less and less complex organisms, yet you CAN imagine it all being predeeded by the most complex, unlikely, and unimaginable self existent cause.
Look, you and I have been back to this question over and over. If you want to start there, you are welcome, but please don't suggest that the way this world looks under carefull study today is congruent with such an event or being. It IS congruent with the process described by evolution.
The video you referred me to showed how intelligently designed things like round logs inspire other intelligent designers to copy and improve on those things. Which contributes nothing that I know to the Darwinian dogma that mutations can't know in advance what steps will be necessary to accomplish a plan or purpose.
All it shows is that intelligently designed humans and perhaps some creatures are created in the image of the Designer, and in fact have creativity and intelligence, which is hardly a refutation and more a confirmation of the ID theory.
It appears to me that Darwinian supporters have been forced to now attribute intelligence to chemistry (See the recent issue of American Chemical Society ACCOUNTS OF CHEMICAL RESEARCH on Chemical Evolution) by coining a phrase "Chemical Intelligence" to explain how undirected, undesigned chemicals organized themselves into the precursors of life, which then self-organized themselves into the information of life, and self-organized the mechanisms to reproduce that information, and then the genius to make chemicals create cells with their multiple functioning organelles and systems, and living membranes, which created complex organisms, which created sexual reproduction, which created all kinds of wonderful things. All without a Designer of course, because Carbon and Nitrogen and Oxygen and Hydrogen all have the amazing, previously unnoticed or uncellebrated innate "Chemical Intelligence."
How neat this is, life is actually as claimed Intelligently Designed, but not by a Great Designer, but by Sodium, Potassium, Hydrogen, and Carbon. So we do have an intelligently designed system, just no Designer to worship. For coal and salt and amonia clearly don't deserve any special respect, obedience, or response.
And by the way Chris, if they do have intelligence, then pardon me, but where did that come from? Turtles all the way down? Intelligence all the way down? just keep going till you tire of asking? When, in Heaven's name, do you come to the Designer?
This is worse than dentistry on an elephant! It is very very difficult to extract an admission that ID makes a lot of sense from those dedication to naturalism. Anything like awareness of reality from those dedicated to the proposition that everything just happened, because……just because… just because…..no reason….OK lots of design but really that's just Chemical Intelligence…..
I'm sorry I'm getting more and more sarcastic. This claim of refuting ID by demonstrating ID really takes the cake in arrogance. I just hope it will shock some evolutionists who see through the farce into rethinking the whole subject.
Jack, I would actually think that Michael Behe and other ID advocates would agree that there is "intelligence" in molecules–essentially, "chemical intelligence." They would, however, wonder how it got there and would suggest that it was put there by a designer chemist. Behe would say, I think, that he believed the chemist was supernatural and was the everlasting and eternal Creator God. I imagine that, when pressed, Behe would say thet the intelligence in chemicals is evidence of a designer, but that the identity of the designer was not so evident, and that he simply chose to believe it was Jehovah God. Some would be more pantheistic in seeing God as the inherent intelligence in all chemicals, whether self-replicating, or not.
Behe seems to think that biological change through variation and selection did occur, once the designed living, self-replicating cells emerged.
I have no problem with seeing design throughout nature, and appreciating it. I do not personally see a need for the design to have been injected on purpose by a designer, but it doesn't bother me for others to hold that belief. I guess the problem I see is when people say it HAD TO BE the way they believe it happened. I do not think it HAD TO BE the way I think it probably happened.
While I don't think it's "turtles all the way down," I do think it is chemicals all the way down, and I do not see a need to believe that there was ever a point when nothing at all existed, and I feel that I am as entitled to that belief as much as the next person is entitled to whatever s/he believes, regardless of what various authorities (such as physicists) might suggest. And, of course, I am quite confident that I could be wrong….
Jack, I think you may have posted the last comment before reading my earlier one. I suggest you re read both my last comments again…
Jack, you really are out on a limb. You accept an evolutionary process because the science is compelling about an old earth and such, but you absolutely insist on superimposing your pre held God upon that system. The only way you can do that with "integrity" is to go for ID because aspects of nature can show "design", and you can support a nebulous, quasi god by doing so. You then insist on a devil to explain all the anomalies to "good" design that you see. You then use this imaginary being to take the blame for bad things in nature, while trying to justify the God you want.
The attribution of aspects of nature to either party is totally arbitrary. You are your own designer of creation! You are your own decider of who did what! And, at the end of the day, you cannot defend your position with a plain reading of Scripture. You resort to all kinds of linguistic gymnastics. I know, I have been where you are. I have read and translated parts of Genesis. I cannot avoid the conclusion you are reading in what you want to see to try to justify your attempt to quell cognitive dissonance.
As for reproduction being what evolution cannot know. Well, all my examples of the bizzare the other day are just dismissed as results of evil!! Please, you use science to demonstrate "ID", then resort to explaining the "bad" bits by a completely unscientific assumption?
The "bad" bits argue against the entire thesis of your blog.
btw Jack, I have to comment on this:
"And by the way Chris, if they do have intelligence, then pardon me, but where did that come from? Turtles all the way down? Intelligence all the way down? just keep going till you tire of asking? When, in Heaven's name, do you come to the Designer?"
Yep, turtles all the way down! Oh, no, actually its designer all the way down, just keep going till you tire of asking, and in heavens name believe me, you will eventually come to a designer…I mean the real designer who designed the designer that designed the designer. Ah, what I really mean is that a design requires a designer, right? Yep, got it, so who designed your designer at the bottom of the stack again?….
oh, btw where is the bottom of the stack?
In nature formation of purines and pyrimidines to form nucleotides the bases of RNA and DNA is enzymatic. To make it simple in the real world, we can’t produce proteins without DNA and we can’t produce DNA without proteins. The rest is just ideas, speculation at best science fiction.
Actually, Mike Behe would not limit 'intelligence' in nature just to physics. "Suppose the Designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems ….." Darwins Black Box pg.227 Frontloading the reams of digital code and machines to read and run them in the first cells is his view.
But back to the chemical neccessity of life thing, back in 2005, Harvard University <http://www.harvard.edu/> announced that they were launching of the Origin of Life Initiative <http://origins.harvard.edu/> with $1 million per year seed funding from the university.
The purpose of the initiative was to integrate a range of scientific disciplines from biology, astronomy, ect, “to understand how life emerged from the chemical soup of early Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets”.
David R. Liu <http://origins.harvard.edu/AssocFaculty.html> , a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard explained: ”my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.” So the secular sciences know HOW to falisfy Intelligent Design (showing that it is a testable scientific theory).
I am not waiting around for naturalism to 'fill-the-gaps;' we should rather act intelligently on what we DO know, not on what we do not know and are waiting for.
"I am not waiting around for naturalism to 'fill-the-gaps;"
Darrel, pardon me, but have you not just spent rheams of type on trying to "fill the origin gap"?
I applaud acting intelligently on what we DO know, but recognizing when one is trying to fill a gap is important, and then having valid ways of ascertaining what we DO in fact know, and HOW we know it, becomes foundational. ie We cannot know anything by "revelation" because it is purely subjective and any authority it has is granted to it by the choice of the reader to "believe". (Yes, I know David N's view on ways of knowing.)
Chris: I might have actually caught you in a faith statement. You wrote, "Seriously. If you put 100 loose nuts and 100 bolts in a tumbler and tumble it for 1 hour, you WILL have several pairs of nuts threaded onto bolts."
If you can show me the peer reviewed experiment where this took place I will believe you. If you cannot then you just made a faith statement.
An interesting question for our discussion: Did David cause an increase of Information when when he hit the send three times? Or did the Information stay constant regardless of how many times repeated?
I am comparing Shannon Information (increased space of code with nothing new) with CSI Complex Specified Information (increasing the content richness with actual new information.)
Some evolutionists attempt to show randomness can increase information, when all they are showing is the copying and pasteing and or rearanging of original code.
David Newman, the whole suggestion Chris made is bogus. Yes of course given enough time you will have threaded bolts. Because some engineer precisely made #8 nuts and # 8 SAE fine threaded bolts that fit! That is Intelligent Design, CB25 keeps doing this, using examples of Intelligence, engineering, nuts and bolts, paper clips, to explain evolution.
If Chris wanted to prove evolution to us then the least he could suggest was if we put 100 chunks of raw iron ore in a tumbler, how long would we have to tumble before we had even one nut and a perfectly matching bolt that screwed themselves together.
The answer is infinite time. But Chris only has at most 4.6 Billion years, not nearly enough for the impossible to happen.
This is exactly the case of sexuality. There is a bolt that exactly fits the nut, in many different unrelated animals and plants. This NEVER can happen without ID.
These attempts to make unguided, undirected evolution reasonable to the common mind, by using intelligently designed, engineered pieces to do it, is driving me crazy. You may know him better than I do, what's the problem? He seems like an intelligent man, but he keeps doing this. The video he was excited over was pathetic.
He is right ID has to have an explanation how our God was the designer, and why there is bad or cruel design. We are trying to do that. But I am getting burnt at the stake by my conservative brethren, and beaten over the head with cream puffs by "arguments" of designed bolts, their designed nuts, and paperclips. They are telling me Behe must agree with them. He agrees it appears we are all related, but of course he does NOT agree that we could have gotten this way with Darwinian mechanisms.
His books all point out that evolution may be true, but naturalistic, undirected evolution is not possible. That is his whole point. There must have been an intervening designer at many critical points, for everything to work as it does.
Jack, you make a great point. The challenge is that Chris lives on another planet. He chides us with being locked in our position and cannot see (either intentionally or otherwise) that he is just as locked into his position. However, my point on faith still stands. He made a strong assertive statement. If he cannot back it up with an actual experiment that proved this within one hour then he made a faith statement. And he does not like to admit that faith enters into his calculations. Now watch. He will find a way to disagree with this analysis as well.
Hi Dr Hoehn
Take a chill pill Doc. Conservatives aren't burning you at the stake; but we're also just beating you over the head with some cream puffs like you do from time to time. Your Theistic Evolution view won't go down well with those from both sides of the divide as you can see. cb25 has indicated previously that he too has been down the same road like you and eventually ended up an atheist (or somewhere close). Not saying you will too though – but don't expect everyone to just pat you on the back for fighting 'a good cause' for the faith with the claims you make even if you use alternative bible interpretations in an effort to combine evolution and creation as intrinsically compatible. Please accept the fact that there is some major disagreement here. If you believe you are right then I respect that too.
Dear 22, I never understood that Dr. Jack was a Theistic Evolutionist. Did I miss something here?
Well Sir, from what I have gathered, Dr Hoehn believes that God created the Earth and lower life forms millions of years ago and through the process of evolution – which would include a very long cycle of life and death – we (Adam and Eve) eventually arrived: or something to that effect.
The key I think in what he posits is that he accredits God for evolution instead of Natural Selection which excludes God. This to me is one variety of Theistic Evolution.
Here are a few lines of his which indicate this:
I got these quotes from here: https://atoday.org/article/1436/blogs/hoehn-jack/2012/why-do-things-evolve
David N,
🙂 let me see, how can I disagree? mmm.
Actually, I didn't quote a peer reviewed article, I said "you put…and you will get.." I have not done it myself, but it has been done, and the result was as I suggested. Go do it and falsify my statement. No problem. I'll go with your results.
Now, Jack has a problem with bolts being already there, correct threads etc, and then tells me to put iron ore in a tumbler. Well I have done that. I have also put gemstones in a tumbler. We will not get bolts. Jack, you are ignoring the entire concept of evolution. Increasing complexity through natural selection. The bolts were only to illustrate that given two suitable parts in a tumbler, order could arise. You have subscribed to the "jumbo from a junkyard" falacy.
It is possible that the first simple life formed this way. We don't know, but certainly the way we see nature operate suggests there is merit in the idea. I am not going to try to plug that "gap". What is absolutely certain is that life shows clear signs it is here in its current form as a result of an evolutionary process. Even you guys are forced to admit micro evolution. There are signs some of the micro has been pretty significant, thus pointing to macro.
Jack: "His books all point out that evolution may be true, but naturalistic, undirected evolution is not possible. That is his whole point. There must have been an intervening designer at many critical points, for everything to work as it does."
Yes, and the logical fallacies and incorrect analogies he engages in to prove "There must have been an intervening designer" are the issue. ie flagellum.
David, here's a link for you of someone who has done it. I may have been a bit generous with the 1 hour, but read down and you will get the point. I have no reason to doubt this "un-peer reviewed" source. Just as I would trust your results!
It is not significant, but does point to how nature can work.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm
The fact is, i know nuts & bolts. i've also known a few. Would like to know several bits of info re: Chris's tumbler of nuts/bolts?
1. the physical size & shape & volume in cubic inches, & material & thickness of it's walls?
2. the " " of nuts & bolts & of hex hd., castle hd, course or fine threads, et al?
3. method of tumbler motion, machine or human turning, rpm?
4. the above plus many other factors which would have to be considered?
i am a skeptic that even one nut would be threaded to a bolt. Where as the above factors would have to have an endless, designed, trial & error testing program, the feasability of random desired results would be absolute nonsense. Sorta like the rolling log proves anything. No disrespect intended, Chris.
Earl, you cannot have it both ways mate…
Your comment suggests you believe a positive result is highly unlikely, and therefore a positive result would be worthy of reflection and consideration as to its meaning. But then, you dismiss it by saying any such result is nonsense anyway and of no more value than rolling a log.
You can't have it both ways.
btw you obviously did not read the link above?!
Why Behe's irreducible complexity is silly (one of a multitude of simple explanations showing Behe up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
The other day while I was having lunch three highly educated friends join me to challenge my believe in creationism; one of them an evolutionist Jew. After a haft hour of arguments I stated “all of you seen to like my black 750IL BMW, do you think having all the time and pieces, this car could assemble by it self?” They you look to me. I continue a single cell is more complex that this car. The Jew who holds a PhD in neurochemistry stated "you have a valid point".
“all of you seen to like my black 750IL BMW, do you think having all the time and pieces, this car could assemble by it self?”
Maybe, if cars could give birth to other cars like biological organisms can, over a very, very long period of time. There is an evolution of cars of a sort, starting with Model Ts and looking at modern hybrids. There has also been a survival of the fittest (as opposed to the biggest) amongst cars, with the big Yank Tanks on the way out to be replaced by smaller, more efficient and more affordable Japanese models.
And that is just in about 100 years of automobiles. Imagine after about 100 years x 100 x 100 x 100 x100 years?
Stephen: These are facts of the natural world that we can verify any time
The molecules for the formation of proteins as well de DNA and RNA are produced enzymatically. To make it simple; to produce enzymes we need DNA and RNA and to produce DNA or RNA we need enzymes.
There is no reproducible evidence of microorganisms o macro organism evolving from one specie to another; still the E. coli is E coli.
All mutations that we know in humans are deleterious and lethal.
Or, perhaps, in some cases, ribozymes, rather than enzymes, to produce RNA, but that is not why I wanted to comment.
David, you are such a kick! Your BMW story is hilarious on many levels. Thanks for posting that!
First, maybe you should see if you can market the concept for a new reality TV show. It could be called "Stump the Evolutionist Jew." But, maybe not. You probably don't need the money, right?
It is so cool to be able to point to the BMW, rather than one's old used Subaru. There is added credibility. "This guy must know what he is talking about if he can afford to own a BMW."
But, suppose I believe that humans are the pinnacle of design. Were they designed to be able to produce BMWs? Maybe the BMW is the ultimate pinnacle and purpose of God's creation….
Or did natural processes produce amoebas and rats and people and BMWs?
So, whether God or nature designed BMWs, they are really cool, and buying one helps people
by providing them with jobs. Everybody wins in the divine plan.
For me the greatest evidence in support of the creation story is the fact that Jesus accepted it as factual when he stated: "King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." If I reject this, I must reject Jesus as the one sent by God to save us from Adam's moral fall. You cannot have it both ways. If Jesus was right then those who believe that we are the result of chance and natural selection are wrong.
How about Jesus statement that the mustard seed is the smallest seed which supposedly becomes the greatest of (Matt 13:31,32). However, scientifically speaking, it is not actually the smallest seed – the orchard seed is. Does that make Jesus a liar?
Similarly, do you believe Jesus thought Himself literally a door (John 10:7)? Is your saviour a literal door? If you reject His door-ness, do you reject Him?
Don't ever forget that biblical prophets, and Jesus as the Word incarnate, communicated to people in their own culture and language. Don't insert your own retrojection 2,000 years later.
I assume as God Jesus knew about science. However, he communicate to people in an ancient world who had limited ideas of such things. The Gen account doesn't tell us anything about DNA, nor would we expect it to do so, even though God obviously knew about it.
And of course the Gen account is a story which must be understood with its intended audience and culture in mind as well.
Chris, you keep making my point but you will not admit it. You write "I have not done it myself," Yet you believe the links that purport to show it are true. How do you know that the link is valid? How do you know that it is not just made up? What scientific evidence do you have that the video is what it says it is? You are accepting it by faith. Especially as you have not done it yourself and neither have you first hand knowledge of the person who is supposed to have done it. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that life could not exist without faith? This is one area where we can agree and if you do not accept that your posting the video links is a faith statement then it is clear that you and I, even though using English words, are speaking totally different languages.
David,
Are you desperate for the nut/bolt/paper clip experiment to not be true? It seems like it. Please note: I innitially said "you do it". I did not paste the link at first. Do it and falsify my statement. No problem!!
However, I have no doubt about its validity. All the evidence points to the fact that Donald E Simanek is a real person. He even has an email on his site. I have even emailed him with a copy of your quote above asking if he would kindly reply to indicate to a skeptic such as you that he is actually a real person. I almost feel silly doing so!
Now, pardon my lack of intelligence but this statement does not make sense to me:
"Why is it so difficult for you to admit that life could not exist without faith?"
I really don't know what you mean. Perhaps it is a different language:)
Perhaps I should point out that you seem to be interchanging the words "faith" and "believe" with abandon. Yes, I do believe the link/data about the bolts and clips is true. There is evidence by its nature and existence that this is highly likely to be so. True, it could be falsified by further research, but based on the evidence to date I believe this unlikely. This element of "weakness" in the case was the very reason I did not post the link at first. I put the propostion to you do: "do the experiment". You are still welcome to falsify my assertion!! I'm waiting.
I have no regret having posted the link, apart from your odd reaction to it. I think you would be more sensible to see it as an expression of my belief based on evidence of its existence, content, style, name at base, email for contact etc, that it is true. You are so hung up on "faith" that that is the only aspect you can see in me posting the link.
I actually have never met you either. In fact all I know about you is words on a screen. Perhaps you are a robot? In fact, on reflection, you and Darrel do react like one at times. Push the right buttons and one can predict the incoming comments…mmm. I should have thought of that.
Do you see my point? The fact is, I do believe you exist. No faith needed. I used to read your Ministry articles when I was in ministry. I've googled your home church, I've read other links by people who've met you. So, no faith needed! Sure, could be all a set up, and further research could falsify my belief, but me thinks not…
Cheers
Chris, thanks for your reference for Behe's "irreducible complexity" from Allen Orr anbd Muller from Talkorigins-much better than that crazy video. I read with great interest, but found no experiemental evidence refered to. Thought experiements are not enough to falsify, or serve as an explanation.
Now here is some experiemental work on Irreducible Complexity regarding "simple" proteins. Nothing fancy right? Recent work by Dr. Douglas Axe, showing that the appearance of even one functional protein, of any kind, was an event so improbable that we would not expect it to happen anywhere in the observable universe, during its 13.7-billion-year history. Dr. Axe has calculated the odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) of any kind, by chance, from a pre-biotic soup as less than 1 in 10^164. And in a recent article, The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds (BioComplexity 2010(1):1-12. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.1), Dr. Axe came up with even more daunting odds relating to the likelihood of a new metabolic pathway evolving by chance:
Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin. (p. 11)
The total number of events (or “elementary logical operations”) that could have occurred in the observable universe since the Big Bang has been calculated as no more than 10 to the power of 120 by MIT researcher Seth Lloyd, in his 2002 article, Computational capacity of the universe (Physics Review Leters 88 (2002) 237901, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.237901). So on the best available evidence is that not only the mechines made of proteins, but proteins themselves are Irreducibly Complex.
Dear 22,
I see. Evolution is a slippery term for sure. As I see it, it is used inter-changably with three different meanings, used according to one’s need.
Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean that the life forms we see today are different from the forms that existed in the distant past. Evolution as “change over time” can also refer to minor changes in features of individual. Even skeptics like myself agree that this type of “change over time” takes place.
Evolution #2: The idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. The claim became known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree. This might be where Brother Jack resides. However, the MECHANISM is the heart of this, and that’s this.
Evolution #3: Refers to a cause or mechanism of change, the biological process that Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. “Neo-Darwinian” evolution combines DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts. This is totally false, but all flows from here.
With number 3 here, an anti-Creator element is often added to make the point.
In the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates "Darwin's greatest accomplishment," which was to show that the origin of life's complexity "can be explained as the result of a natural process — natural selection — without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent." Just to make sure that his readers don't try to invoke some kind of "God-guided" evolution, Ayala writes that "[i]n evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations."
Francisco J. Ayala, "Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8567Ð8573 (May 15, 2007).
Cornell University evolutionary biologist William Provine has similarly stated that "belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people"11 and that "One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
William B. Provine, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, pgs. S117, S123 (Margaret W. Rossiter ed., University of Chicago Press 1999).
So, Evolution, in its ‘global sense, all Intelligent Design Creationists completely reject.
Darrel, you wrote: "In the prestigious scientific journal, Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates "Darwin's greatest accomplishment," which was to show that the origin of life's complexity "can be explained as the result of a natural process — natural selection — without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."mary
Thank you for this quotation. It shows that there is no way to marry the theory of evolution to the doctrine of creation found in the Bible. The veiled objective of evolution is to lead people away from the worship of the Creator. Those who choose said pathway will sooner or later be tempted to question the existence and the power of Almighty God.
Darrel and others, I certainly recommend reading writings of Francisco Ayala. He is a brilliant man with deep understanding of population and molecular biology. He knows, for example, that there are many sources of variation upon which natural selection and other mechanisms can act. I know this because we have sat in the same room for discussions and presentations and at the same table for dinner several times where we discussed these issues. He is a former Catholic priest who became a student of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Both of them were at UC Davis while I was a graduate student there. Professor Ayala's involvement in the study of evolutionary biology has spanned about 50 years in which dramatic progress has been made in the understanding of developmental and evolutionary biology. But, as I always advise, don't just believe everything you read. Read carefully and critically, and after you do, feel free to believe whatever you can.
"I have no problem with seeing design throughout nature…I do not personally see a need for the design to have been injected on purpose by a designer…"
Could you unpack that statement, Joe? It doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't "design" by definition infer a designer, just like speech presupposes a speaker?
I remember someone – it seems like it was you or Chris – on a different blog conceding that science doesn't prove the theory of evolution. It simply makes Creationism highly unlikely. I thought that was a fair statement. Can it not also be said that, even if probability and statistics, applied to scientific data, do not prove intelligent design, they do make the regnant theory of evolution highly unlikely? Is it not close-minded to refuse to deal with evidence which casts doubt on a theory simply because you are afraid that the evidence will be used for nefarious purposes? Is it not intellectually dishonest to use one standard to validate evolution, and then refuse to use the same standard to give credence to the challenges that standard, widely-accepted methods of statistics and probability pose to evolutionary dogma when applied to biochemical processes and scientific data?
I agree with the point Chris has repeatedly made – I.D. is certainly not proof of the God of the Bible. Neither does science prove many claims that are made in its name. But that doesn't mean we should reject scientific evidence, even if it is misused. I.D. requires a high degree of cross-disciplinary sophistication and scientific understanding. The insistence that it should not be given intellectual and academic recognition, because Christians have embraced it, defies common sense and reason, particularly in light of the garbage that fills the curriculum at today's institutions of higher learning.
Nathan, you wrote: "Is it not intellectually dishonest to use one standard to validate evolution, and then refuse to use the same standard to give credence to the challenges that standard, widely-accepted methods of statistics and probability pose to evolutionary dogma when applied to biochemical processes and scientific data?"
That is a statement worth repaeating. The double standard used by evolutionists when dealing with the scientific evidence for design is incredible!
Nathan and Nic,
Please sign me up as supporting intellectual honesty on all sides of all discussions.
We can start, I think, by recognizing diversity within various perspectives and making sure we avoid stereotyping and overgeneralizing. When our positions are inaccurately characterized, we all get defensive and are tempted to reply in ways that do not advance communication.
Warm wishes to you all.
David,
Donald has replied to my email already. Here is the full text, exactly as he wrote it:
"Chris,
Thanks for your note.
Your Mr. Newman refers to a video. I did not make a video. I wonder whether he actually read my site that you linked, for at the bottom there is an endnote:
——————————–
1. Reading my description of the nut/bolt experiment, some have concluded that somehow I faked the data, or "made up" the whole thing. In such cases, I simply say "Repeat the experiment yourself if you doubt it." They didn't. Then, in July 2011, I received a note from physicist Alberto Rojo who did the experiment and reported the results:
And I am thrilled that someone chose to do the experiment hands-on, even improving on mine by doing the tumbling "by hand" in a coffee can. I have long been an advocate of doing physics rather than just talking about it.
———————————-
So I suggest that your Mr. Newman try it himself. One of my readers got clever and taped a can of nuts and bolts to the spokes of his bicycle, and then took it for a long ride. Everyone heard him coming and going, but the outcome was creation in the least expensive experiment I could imagine.
This demonstrates just one thing. The commonly heard assertion from creationists that "Order can not arise from disorder." just isn't true. I make no more profound claims than that.
Some people should get off their duffs and DO some physics rather than pontificate fantasies about it.
So far as I know I was to propose the nut/bolt experiment and do it. However, similar sorting and assembly methods are used in industry, using the principle of shaking small parts until they are oriented to exit the shaker right side up and front side forward.
Anyone who tinkers in his home shop probably has a box of miscellaneous small parts, sometimes called a "hell box". When an oddball part is needed, you rummage in the box till you find it. When you have parts like nuts and bolts left over from a project, you toss them in. After a while you find that sometimes bolts and nuts are linked, from the frequent rummaging. People who experience this are not at all surprised to see this order arising from disorder and purposeless "random" agitation of small objects. Anyone who gets paper clips in boxes has often found some linked, even though the box was factory sealed. Some people just can't "see" evidence when it is all around them, if it goes against their prior convictions.
But you are unlikely to convince such minds. I get a lot of mail from folks who are convinced that perpetual motion machines are possible, even over-unity machines (putting out more work than the energy they take in). They proudly declare that the conservation laws of physics are invalid, not realizing that if they are invalid, then so are Newton's laws, laws they claim they accept (and even incorrectly use in the describing of their inventions). They simply reject any physics that goes against their convictions. Rarely do they learn. But on the bright side, I received a proposal last week from a small business owner in Indiana who had a clever device, offering to pay me for an analysis of it. I declined the pay offer, but told him how he could test it, and I predicted the outcome. To my surprise he did test it (he had the proper equipment on hand), then sent me a video, confirming that my prediction was spot on.
There's a similar blind spot in perpetual motionists who tell me that magnets have unlimited stored energy, and cite the example of the refrigerator magnet supporting its own weight on the refrigerator wall indefinitely. I tell them that that nail supporting the picture frame on the wall must also have unlimited energy for the same reason. They fail to realize that work requires motion, and a force supporting an unmoving weight is doing NO work, and therefore consuming NO energy.
In our Freshman physics we used to have a sign that said "In this LABORATORY, let's have more of the first five letters and less of the last seven."
The late Mike Royko was right when he characterized the internet as "not an information highway, but an asylum of babbling loonies."
— Donald"
Chris, you are as slippery as an eel in oil. And I will try this for the last time. I was not discussing ID. All I was saying was that you posted a web link, twice, that you by faith accepted as genuine. Now you are trying to prove the last one is genuine by having the author email you. But before you did that you assumed that his site was valid. You gave no scientific evidence to prove that it was valid. You by FAITH believed that it was valid. Trying to prove scientifically that is is valid now is beside the point. Every time you drive on the roads you use faith. You believe, because of evidence, that people will drive on the correct side, and mostly they do. But sometimes, despite the evidence, some do not and a crash occurs. You cannot predict when or if that will occur but you decide, by faith, to still drive, believing that you will take the risk that it will not happen to you. This is so elementary I can hardly believe that I have to write this. So again ID was not my discussion. Faith was. And it still stands that it was by faith that you first posted those links. So please will you stay with the subject of faith and not try and side track the situation with ID etc? It is impoossible to live in this world without faith.
"It is impossible to live in this world without faith." Very true. May I suggest that the statement is incomplete. The question is faith in what — precisely? and in what context? and for what purpose? May I say to my good friend David that just saying that humans can not live in this world without faith is a kind of truism without a lot of substance. It is something like saying that humans can not live without eating. O.K., but what is your point?.
Erv, my point, which Chris is reluctant to accept, is that posting the two links was an act of faith. That is all I was trying to say.
David,
My link about the bolts was in direct response to this question from you:
"Since there is no intelligence yet how can it select what will work?"
Somewhere in the proces you changed this to faith, and I was puzzled over this line:
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that life could not exist without faith? bold added.
Now you have changed that to:
"It is impoossible to live in this world without faith."
Call me an eel, but those are two completely different angles/uses of the word faith. Your last statement, is NOT where this started! Your goal posts are all over the place.
As for accepting the sites by "faith". NO. I accepted them based on previous experience and an intelligent assessment of their validity based on that experience. Just because I did not first up spell out all the judgements and decisions I had made as to whether I believed these sites genuine, does not mean I had not done so. I absolutely had. That is the reason I could make the assertion: You put 100….and you WILL get….". Based on the evidence I had assessed I had no doubt it would be the case.
You are essentially re phrasing my statement as "Put 100 bolts …and I have faith (an assertion without any evidence to back it up) you WILL get…"
The reality is and my intent was: "Put 100 bolts…and (based on evidence I have seen which for good reasons I believe to be factual/true, and I have no doubt that) you WILL get…"
Please note. I am using "faith" in this sense: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." THAT is the essence of faith required to beleive in God, Creation, etc etc.
I am NOT using it in the senses of: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something"
That is the use to which you are reverting when you make the statement: "It is impossible to live in this world without faith."
I do not believe you and I have been discussing faith in that context at all.
David,
I note your point to Irvin:
"Chris is reluctant to accept, is that posting the two links was an act of faith. That is all I was trying to say."
I agree this kind of "faith" is part of human culture and relationships, but it is worlds away from where you and I began.
My belief was based on reality. Consider this: a belief that is not dependent on reality (faith in the "no matierial evidence" form) also can't be refuted by reality. Your argument against my belief over the bolts was refuted by reality. That is not faith in the sense where we began!!
correction. last sentence was meant to mean "the kind of faith you are using about living in the world, and mentioned by Irvin, is not faith in the sense where we began!!
Chris, You are right. I am not always careful with what I write. I apologize for the slam on ID. Let's deal wlith the article on ID and in particular the nutes and bolts and the paper clips. If your premise is wrong then often your conclusion is wrong. Donalds definition of complexity leads to his conclusion that order came when muts adhered to bolts and paper clips joined each other. But that is his definhtion which is very inadequate. Let's use a definition that has wide acceptance. Here is how dictionary.com defines complex:
According to that defintion Donalds illusttration is not one of complexity but just randomness. Now if you take the definition above and Donald places three metal plates with holes in them with the tumbler and bolts position themselves through the plates and nuts fit onto the bolts through the holes then he might have a point.
Take the paper clips. He is right .I often find clips joined together at random. But if he places the paper clips in a box with three cards numbered 1, 2, and 3 and shakes the box and a paper clip joins thre three cards together in numerical order then we might have a case for complexity. So Donald's argument is no arglument at all.
David, you wrote: "Take the paper clips. He is right .I often find clips joined together at random. But if he places the paper clips in a box with three cards numbered 1, 2, and 3 and shakes the box and a paper clip joins thre three cards together in numerical order then we might have a case for complexity."
Right! And if we multiply this by the billions of conincidences required for the DNA to function properly, the odds of this happening by mere chance and natural selection becomes so extraordinary that the probability becomes for all practical purposes zero.
All the way from simple chemicals to extraordinarily complex ones, there are affinities and aversions that promote or discourage reactions and bonding and breaking down into other chemicals. All this is happening in various physical contexts in enormous numbers over long periods of time. These are not "random." They are, to some extent, systematic and progressively constructive across time.
Joe, you wrote: "All the way from simple chemicals to extraordinarily complex ones, there are affinities and aversions that promote or discourage reactions and bonding and breaking down into other chemicals. All this is happening in various physical contexts in enormous numbers over long periods of time. These are not "random." They are, to some extent, systematic and progressively constructive across time."
Suppose we design a computer program whereby the letters of the alphabet and all the punctuation marks and spaces are chosen at random, do you think that after a million years the product will look like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica?
No.
Nic, how you can ask such a strange question after having read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker utterly puzzles me! If there is ONE thing anyone should learn from that book, it is the difference between single-step evolution of the creationist demagogues and cumulative, step-by-step evolution of taught by actual evolutionary theorists. I suggest you re-read chapter 3.
If a box of cards of paper clips is supposed to be analogous to this earth, it is a very poor analogy. Even those who believe in ID have no identity of the Intelligent Designer. It is merely circular reasoning: this earth is too complex, ergo, it must have been a special intelligence to design it; ergo, that Designer has to be God. It could also be the Wizard of Oz, or intelligence from outer space who resides on far away planets. IOW, it proves nothing other than one's own belief has clouded rational discussions.
Elaine, you wrote: " It could also be the Wizard of Oz, or intelligence from outer space who resides on far away planets."
You're right! This is why the evidence from nature is not enouth. It must be complemented by Revelation from above. If the evidence from nature had been enough, the Lord would not have bothered giving visions and dreams to his chosen prophets, and God would not have had a need to send his own Son down to this earth!
David,
Whatever makes you happy!
…ok. I'll make one comment, but I'm pretty much over this discussion.
You just may find this usefull along with the link to its source below.
"Complexity can only exist if both aspects are present: neither perfect disorder (which can be described statistically through the law of large numbers), nor perfect order (which can be described by traditional deterministic methods) are complex. It thus can be said to be situated in between order and disorder, or, using a recently fashionable expression, "on the edge of chaos".
You may have missed it in my link about Behe last night, but there was an illustration there of two step irreducibly complexity. Simply place three, flat topped blocks beside each other in a row. lay a flat slap along the top of this, and then remove the block from beneath the center of the slab. ie the middle block of the three you placed in a row.
What do you have? You have an irreducibly complex bridge!
As I say, I'm over this discussion, and see little point in going on…
Here's the source to the quote:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/COMPLEXI.html
Chris, Cheers (warm smile)
Chris, you are correct, i hadn't read the reference, as we were both composing at the time. However the
following: 1. Note that designed objects were used in the experiements. 2. the nuts and bolts were not of same size, but larger nuts. 3. a better experiment would be if pieces of steel were put in the tumbler, and tumbled until they formed into threaded nuts and bolts of same size, and also a few screwed together.
4. Don't really see that these experiments offer any proof, or odds, that raw materials, by random actions, are possible to produce man, a living life form, that has enjoyable sex by both partners, and can reproduce living offspring. Also, the trillions of other types & kinds of living life forms from smaller than nano to elephantine, dinosaur, & leviathan sizes. It would require trillions of those random moments for each of those individual happenings, to have occurred. Without ID, i can't accept it. Cheers.
This is a blog that started out with a false premise that nobody challenged, and it went downhill from there. Jack Hoehn asserts in his opening essay that:
In her 2005 book, evolutionary biologist Elisabeth Anne Lloyd, has exposed the inadequacy of the attempts by male Darwinists to explain an evolutionary justification for sexuality, especially the reason that evolution would create female pleasure in sex. She identifies 21 attempts to do so, but she debunks them all!
This is a blatantly false statement, because Lloyd does NOT debunk all of them but defends one of those 21 theories called the “by-product theory” developed by Donald Symons in the 1970's, an evolutionary theory just as mechanistic as the ones she rejects. But the “by-product theory” is based on developmental (embryological) theory, rather than adaptation theory. That is, it is based on the fact that the male and female embryos are sexually undifferentiated for about the first 8 weeks of life. During those 8 weeks, the sexually undifferentiated embryo develops both nipples and a genital tubercule. After differentiation, the female goes on to develop nipples capable of eventually delivering milk, whereas the male will retain those nipples though they will never be able to produce milk.
Similarly, the male embryo genital tubercule will go on to develop into a functioning penis that will eventually be able to deliver sperm upon orgasm, whereas the female will retain only an emergent analogue to the penis in the clitoris, which will still retain the penis’s ability to induce orgasms. Embryological explanations for the female orgasm are not adaptational, but they are just as much a part of evolutionary theory as a whole, though there is some infighting among evolutionary theorists over that question.
Jack’s quote of Lloyd from page 1 in which Hoehn supposedly documents his (false) assertion is therefore utterly misleading:
Lloyd writes,
“It may seem to be obvious that the female orgasm has an evolutionary function, but the obviousness of this conclusion must be reevaluated after looking at the relevant evidence. It turns out that no one has ever adequately shown a function for the female orgasm in increasing either fertility or reproductive success.” (1.)
Jack apparently does not understand that adaptation (reproductive success) is only one of many natural means by which evolutionary biologists such as Lloyd think evolution is brought about. But if Jack actually read the book he is quoting, then he would have read the following:
One higher level background assumption important to this research is that not every biological character is adaptive–that there exist alternative evolutionary explanations available, such as evolutionary developmental accounts or accounts that cite correlations in growth (Ridley 1996; Griffiths et al. 2002) p. 243
Thus, in context, Lloyd is not arguing that the female orgasm cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, and is thus a complete mystery. Not at all! She is only arguing that the female orgasm is better explained by developmental theory than by adaptation theory, both of which are evolutionary theories. From there on, Jack proceeds to build the rest of his essay upon an embarrassing foundation of sinking sand. For example,
God knew that of course, but wanted Adam to know it too, wanted Adam to value what was coming next, wanted Adam to realize that he needed more than God. This naked man needed his naked and unashamed woman. And as the animals had been created first to serve him, Adam was created first to meet the needs and serve Eve.
This might make some sense if the female orgasm is unique to humans. But Lloyd argues that orgasm is experienced by non-human female apes (stumptail Macaques), and that it has actually been documented only in homosexual (female humping female) encounters. (P. 227) Since female orgasm in Macaques has only been observed in a homosexual context, that is one argument Lloyd cites for her conclusion that female orgasm is unrelated to “reproductive success.”
Since Jack seems to insist on drawing theological conclusions from the female orgasm, what theological lesson was God teaching humanity from this? Was it the biological truth that female primates can achieve orgasm quite apart from sexual intercourse, and without any need for men?
While this truth will make the feminists quite happy, I doubt that Jack wants to go there. The rest of his essay is just as much a non-sequitur.
Lloyd’s agenda in this book is not to establish that evolutionary theory cannot account for the female orgasm, as Jack mistakenly believes, but that the insistence of most researchers to explain it as an adaptation, as opposed to other evolutionary factors, is based on four unwarranted background biases:
I would like to suggest that there are four basic background assumptions in operation that led to most investigators to either neglect evidence that was there, to misinterpret evidence, or assume evidence correlating fitness with orgasm was adequate, or to assume that such evidence existed. These assumptions are: adaptationism, androcentrism, procreative focus, and human uniqueness. (P. 229)
I only came across this blog in late July, and knew nothing about Lloyd or the battle over the female orgasm until I read Hoehn’s statement. But as soon as I looked up Lloyd’s academic credentials, and read a few online reviews, I knew this paragraph had to be false. I went to the Caltech library to look at the book the first chance I got and copied some relevant pages, just to be sure.
Jack’s argument is intended to be a God of the Gaps (GOG) argument for God. But all GOG arguments are based on the fallacious assumption that human ignorance regarding nature, somehow constitutes evidence of God’s existence. But it is a non-sequitur, because God’s existence should have nothing to do with the relative ignorance or stupidity of humans.
This becomes readily obvious when we consider that God could just as well have created a planet in which there were no organisms any higher than insects from a neurological perspective. Insects have no brain. If the GOG argument were valid, then would not such a world be drowning in evidence for God’s existence, since there would be absolutely no knowledge of nature by insects whatsoever?
Jack Hoehn and I apparently have something in common. We both took religion classes at PUC from Leslie Harding and Robert Olsen.
Very interesting and illuminating, Dennis. Good work! I very much appreciate the dangers of GOG arguments, although I don't think Jack was arguing that human sexuality proves the existence of God. Rather, he was arguing the inadequacy/absence of coherent evolutionary arguments. Finding or inventing an evolutionary category (developmental evolution) to describe a feature that one cannot explain within traditional evolutionary theory might be considered by some an example of DOG (Darwin of the gaps).
Evolutionary theory is increasingly prone, as the natural world continues to unfold complexity that defies naturalistic explanations, to fall prey to the fallacy of composition. The fact that the Ptolemaic system worked wonderfully well for hundreds of years should not have been used to close the book on questions which raised doubts. It is sad that neo-Darwinists seem even more hostile to doubts about their dogma than the Catholic Church was to doubts about the Ptolemaic explanation of the universe.
Dennis,
Well picked up and explained.
I knew about human milk lines (male and female) but missed that quite obvious connection.
What a bunch of.., simplistic explanation.
The sex is determined by the expression of the y and x chromosomes.
Chris, I am glad you haven’t totally given up on this discussion. I have been reading your exchanges with David Newman and Jack over the improbability of undirected evolution. I see four major problems in these exchanges. There has been no distinction made between ontological vs. methodological naturalism; there has been no discussion about the insurmountable technical difficulties of assigning probability to cosmic events; and there has been little concern over the huge difference between cumulative and one-step selection. Finally, there seems to be an unwillingness by David N and Jack H to even recognize the traditional distinction between “faith” based on unsubstantiated assertions made in “inspired” texts or declarations, and a belief arising from “public evidence.” I will address the last point first.
The Trivialization of “Faith”
Everyone has constructed a model world in their mind on the basis of their privately held assumptions about reality, and we all behave in accordance with that model world, whether or not it corresponds with the world everyone else observes. David apparently wants to label every psychological model of the world that we each hold in our minds a “faith” product.
When defined in that strange way, everybody including atheists and psychopaths must “live by faith.” What does he accomplish by trivializing the meaning of “faith” to the point committing verbicide? I would guess his motivation stems from intellectual egalitarianism in that careful, discriminating thinkers, including atheists and agnostics, can no longer set themselves apart from psychopaths, creationists, IDers and Islamic fundamentalists because they are now all made equally “people of faith” by definitional fiat. We might as well excise the word faith from our vocabulary because it is now completely redundant with “belief” or “assumption.”
You are declared to be as slippery as an “eel in oil” because you insist that there is a meaningful distinction between beliefs based upon “public evidence,” and a faith based upon unsubstantiated “private evidence” which could include your dreams or the visions, dreams or hallucinations of others that some have declared to be divine “Revelation.” If recognizing such a distinction is “being as slippery as an eel in oil,” then count me in along with all the liberal Christian theologians.
Dennis,
You've made some insightfull and interesting comments. I will attempt to spend a bit of time reading back through this thread with your points in view.
If I recall rightly, it was the discussions about faith and belief here that contributed in part to my latest blog on faith and belief. It was a blog that did not go down reely well!
I'll be interested if you have any more input on the former of your points as well, and how it fits into the thinking of Jack and others..
Ontological Versus Methodological Naturalism
The distinction between ontological and methodological naturalism (MN) is important because it separates scientism (an atheistic ideology) from science as a methodology. This distinction frees committed theists to engage in science with just as much scientific integrity and enthusiasm as atheists without making any theological concessions whatsoever to atheism or agnosticism. Theists who do this would be called instrumentalists. That is, they are using science pragmatically as a way to gain more control over nature, because whatever the reason, science does work.
Science as MN is basically conceived of as a recipe that must be followed in order to come to conclusions that can be called “scientific.” It is like baking a chocolate cake by following a recipe. Meticulously following a chocolate cake recipe will produce a chocolate cake whether or not one has a “chocolate cake faith” or belief. In the same way, one can practice MN without being an atheist or agnostic, and the conclusion reached will still be scientific. Why would one care to earn the label of being scientific? Because science generally “works” to save us time, money and effort in accomplishing the things we care about.
MN discloses its required four premises or presuppositions up front. As expressed by Sam Harris at a recent Cal Tech lecture (reconstructed from my notes, and supplemented by my own foot notes, they are:
1. Assume that there is an external universe that exists independently of human mental projections.
(This is a methodological rejection of solipsism.)
2. Assume that our five senses (when corroborated by others; thus becoming “public”) are the only valid means of observing this phenomenological universe.
(This is a methodological confinement of science to the phenomenological world, and not a denial that there might be non-sensory dimensions to reality.)
3. Assume that the phenomenological universe possesses the character of continuity, or consistency such that a representative sample of it gives us a valid basis of projecting the nature of the universe of data from which that sample was taken.
(Although this may be objectionable from a theists perspective, because it disallows “miracles” and divine intervention which are “discontinuities,” the NM reply is that this rule is strictly methodological for the benefit of a research program, without any necessary ontological implications. Historically, many natural phenomena that initially seemed miraculous (discontinuous) turned out to have underlying mechanical explanations. Therefore, it would be methodologically foolish to give up on “discontinuities” so long as humans are fallible, since that would stop investigation.
Finally, the objection that Carl Popper has found a way for science to avoid using inductive logic, is essentially false. That is because his hypothetico-deductive (HD) system amounts to consequentialism, which is merely a substitution of back-loading for a front loading of the inductive assumption. Also, there can be no consistent predictions by any hypothesis in HD unless there is consistency or regularity in the universe. So HD has smuggled in induction via the back door.)
4. When considering alternative theories of explanation, the theory to be preferred must be the one which best conforms to the “law of parsimony.”
(This is Bertrand Russell’s interpretation of Occam’s razor that essentially means that we must not unnecessarily multiply the existence of (ad hoc) entities in our explanations. IOW, we should not rush in to invoke a meddlesome God whenever we do not understand the natural mechanisms behind an event. History tells us that what may appear to be miraculous today may become “ho hum” science tomorrow.)
Following these rules does not require ontological faith in any of them. One only has to accept them as a logical framework within which one must work if he/she wishes to be scientific. This is no different than working a word problem in a math text book, or playing a game of chess. When you do either activity, you simply accept that there was a “Sally who picked 5 apples from her orchard,” or that “there are only 64 squares within which to play the game.” Playing strictly by those rules does not make one a “Sally fundamentalist,” or stuck with “64 square fanaticism,” because one is not making an ontological commitment to either proposition. One is simply practicing methodological discipline or integrity within a given logical framework.
Why should we care about practicing discipline or integrity within any given logical framework? Because it is only within a given logical framework that there can be any truth at all. It is the premise or premises within a logical framework that constitute the criterion or criteria for any truth; they enable us to distinguish truth from trash. So if we care about truth, then we will practice discipline and integrity in acting and reasoning within our chosen logical framework.
That being said, every logical framework (including MN) and the construction of every premise is the work of humans, and therefore fallible with respect to the real world (though they may be absolutely true in the world of ideas, such as mathematics). Thus there are many competing logical frameworks that contradict each other, and some of them contain premises that we cannot accept. For example, I reject the logical framework of the Islamic Taliban, and am disgusted by some of their premises.
From that cacophony of competing premises and logical frameworks, I and most moderns will choose MN as the one with the best record in terms of being able to be self critical as well as successful in making predictions about the real world. (But I also respect religion because it has a successful record in terms of motivating people to behave responsibly in terms of society, despite all the apparent mistakes it has made in claims about the real world, and the horrible and bloody commands it has made in the name of God.)
The bottom line is that there is (apparently) no magic button we can push to automatically arrive at absolute or ontological truth. Even science needs to create a logical framework by beginning with unprovable premises which could theoretically be wrong. For example, theoretically the solipsists could be correct, and what we perceive as the eternal world really is only a projection of the human mind. There simply is no way to begin reasoning only from premises that are known to be absolutely true with respect to the real world, because there cannot be anybody who can provide such a guarantee whose authority cannot in turn be challenged. In short, there is a problem of infinite regress that (apparently) cannot be overcome. In light of these limitations, epistemological humility seems quite justified. So while I love Dawkins’ scientific reasoning, I can’t go along with his ontological arrogance.
While I always try to be vigilant against cultists and carnival type barkers who want to cheat on scientific methodology in order to claim the approval of science in promoting their products, I do not subscribe to scientism.
Correction:
"For example, theoretically the solipsists could be correct, and what we perceive as the external world might only be a projection of the human mind."
Dennis, thank you; very interesting. Helpful. “The distinction made between ontological vs. methodological naturalism” is noted. Methodological naturalism (MN) as an approach of investigation (instrumentalism) is “pragmatically” helpful. To a point!
When investigating information systems the same scientific method demands more than material or formal causes. Information demands an explanation in efficient causes and final causes.
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Lewontin R.C., "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997. Emphasis in original).
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
While the above is true from a methodological perspective, Darrel, it is not as if we have the option of using a logic that is devoid of any (biasing) a priori presuppositions. As long as we think there is something called truth, then we must necessarily have a logic that defines truth, and that logic must contain a priori premises that allow us to make that discrimination. Furthermore, those a priori premises will be composed by humans.
So how can we do any better than MN in investigating how the world works?
Interesting, an explanation that has some ambiguous tolerance relative to pure scientism & methodological pursuits. Then of course occassionally we have speculative & dishonest positions that some promote for personal reasons of enrichment, of methodological inventions, by delay or outright chicanery, by milking the existing cash cows. Perhaps, while many suffer the consequences, especially in the pharmacology, biological, med instrumentational pdts, med expertise, and also in the energy & agricultural sectors.
Assigning Probabilities to Cosmic Events
I have not seen any discussion here on the technical difficulties of assigning the probability of certain cosmic events happening when one does not even know the initial conditions of the universe. Perhaps some people think that the sky opens up and an authoritative voice announces the probability of certain conditions happening on earth. The way it works is much more prosaic.
Estimating the probability of any event happening requires that a mathematician find an appropriate mathematical model that will generate a table of probabilities assuming that each event is completely random.
There are probably hundreds of different mathematical models that have been created to generate probability tables. Probably the best known one is the binomial distribution model. It would be used in cases where there are only two outcomes, such as flipping a coin. Each mathematical model assumes random, independent trials. Researchers planning an experiment look up all the available mathematical models before they design their experiment, so that they will have a probability table available to evaluate their outcome. Unless their experiment meets all the assumptions of the particular mathematical model, the experimenter cannot use that mathematical model.
This is a serious difficulty in cosmology, as nobody knows the initial conditions of the cosmos, or this planet, as the case may be. Therefore, no particular mathematical model could be shown to be appropriate. The experimenter would just have to presuppose that whatever the initial conditions were, they were such that the particular natural event under investigation was random, and therefore, mathematical model XX was appropriate. Is such speculative presumption justified?
Speculation cannot be other than speculation, or as the saying goes, one cannot transform a pigs ear into a silk purse. Consider that nature has no obligation to be random. In fact, it is known to be full of biases. Lightning, for example, does not strike randomly, but is terribly biased in favor of following the path of least resistance. Water does not flow randomly, but stubbornly persists in flowing only “down hill.” And if there is any bias in the cosmos regarding the outcomes of the event being investigated, then all the mathematical models based on randomness become inapplicable for answering the question of probability for that question and can be tossed in the garbage can.
A cosmologist who understands this technical obstacle to assigning probability for cosmology is Harold Morowitz, author of The Emergence of Everything. People who keep pounding the table regarding improbability despite these huge technical obstacles to responsibly assigning probability to such events, are presumably being pushed more by apologetic concerns than scientific ones, and don’t even understand the mathematics behind probability calculations.
Evolutionary theory, however, is all about biases in nature, and how they have a cumulative effect far greater than one might imagine. There is a famous poem that shows the cumulative nature of tiny little changes from the norm.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
While this is not technically about biological evolution, and is a negative example, rather than a positive one, this well known poem demonstrates the idea of enormous consequences resulting from small, seemingly inconsequential deviations and the chain reaction that follows logically from cumulative, systematic biases after that small deviation.
Excellent observations Dennis.
Re this, "..And if there is any bias in the cosmos regarding the outcomes of the event being investigated, then all the mathematical models based on randomness become inapplicable for answering the question of probability for that question and can be tossed in the garbage can." bold added.
..Seems to me one of those cases in which "if" is virtual certainty!
Hi Dennis, "logic must contain a priori premises. . . . " Correct! "Furthermore, those a priori premises will be composed by humans." Not correct! 'Composed' is the wrong word in my view; 'discovered' is more reality. Like the rules of mathmatics, the rules of logic are discovered and not created by us.
when it comes to life systems which are ran by digital machine code and machines translating, and editing that code, then MN is logical in investigating "how" it works, but not logical in explaining the Origin of such. Life is Information. Digital Code (orders of magnitude beyond any that humans have created) can not logically be explained by Natural Mindless Material forces.
So how can we do any better than MN? is not logically the choice here; it is when is MN logically used and when is it not? That is the more insightful question.
Darrel, I have already made an explicit exception for the realm of ideas such as mathematics:
"That being said, every logical framework (including MN) and the construction of every premise is the work of humans, and therefore fallible with respect to the real world (though they may be absolutely true in the world of ideas, such as mathematics)."
But it is entirely wrong headed, IMO, to draw analogies between mathematics and the realm of abstract ideas to the real world as you are here doing. This is basically Platonism.
One can of course philosophically presuppose that the ultimate reality is ideas, and that our phenomeological world is only an illusory shadow reflected on the wall of the cave as Plato did. That is the world view you have apparently adopted and are advocating.
Dennis, do you think there is logical way to distinguish Information e.i. Digital Code from 'natural'
phenomena ? Would you agree with me that True Information (not Shannon Information or crystal formation) but complex specified infoation must come from a mind?
Darrel, I am not booked up on ID, or “information theory” and have not read Meyers’ Signature in the Cell, for example, though I have watched an interview of him explaining his ideas of DNA as language. (There are simply too many books and too little time, and I have to allocate my time to what look to me like the most promising areas.) So I am not going to pontificate about what I have not read.
But as I have repeatedly said, I draw a line between ontology and methodology. Science as MN is a research program designed to discover what can be known about the phenomenological (mechanical) universe and has limited itself to analysis of public (sensory) evidence. I do know from my personal encounter with ID advocates such as Johnson (and his book) as well as well as historians like Ron Numbers that ID advocates are presuming to redefine science to include divine “explanations.”
I reject that redefinition of science, because I think it is self defeating as a research program, though I think it is theoretically possible that a God of some kind may be involved with the world in some way. It is self defeating because it is analogous to signing on to an intellectual welfare program (like signing up for the government food stamp program despite being able bodied) in which we give up on trying to understand the phenomenological world and concede it is inherently mystical, and beyond our understanding.
Now, on to answer your question, “…do you think there is logical way to distinguish Information e.i. Digital Code from 'natural' phenomena?” Yes, there is. I take “natural phenomena” to be public evidence, or sensory data. That is what MN is built upon. By contrast, “True Information,” as you apparently define it, comes from a God-like intelligence by definition. So it is an interpretation of data that constitutes another GOG argument in which human ignorance is apparently equated with proof of God’s existence. This obviously is incompatible with the methodological framework of MN.
This is not to say that ID is necessarily false. Maybe it is ontologically true in that ultimately Plato was right, and that the material world is only a dim reflection of ultimate reality. Perhaps humans are really ingenious organic toys programmed by a clever God, and that people like Meyer have finally uncovered God’s long held secret with ingenious analysis. I am all for letting information theorists start their own branch of investigation amalgamating mysticism and science. Let us see what predictions it can make that science cannot make. More power to them if they can contribute something to human knowledge. But it obviously does not qualify as MN.
Dennis, there is some misunderstanding in some statements: “True Information,” as you apparently define it, comes from a God-like intelligence by definition." Dennis, Digital Information comes from a mind. This is without question. That the Digital Code of DNA is highly complex specified information is without question. That DNA is language, or that DNA is digital code is not an analogy. You said it's "like a language." No, it is language! This is not analogical but emperical.
Intelligent Design Creationists do not argue from "what we don't know" (GOG argument). This is a strawman argument.
We know this is information and only information comes from a mind. Just this fact does not, by itself, mean "God" neccessarly is the designer. But it does mean that the climb up "mount improbable" was a "mindless" process. So we know the standard definitions of 'evolution' are thus completely falsified.
So it is an interpretation of data that constitutes another GOG argument in which human ignorance is apparently equated with proof of God’s existence.
Correction: But it does mean that the climb up "mount improbable" was NOT a "mindless" process. So we know the standard definitions of 'evolution' are thus completely falsified.
Maybe you would enjoy the movie "prometheus" that Dawkin's condemned because it delt with this subject in open minded way.
Darrel, you write,
“True Information,” as you apparently define it, comes from a God-like intelligence by definition." Dennis, Digital Information comes from a mind. This is without question. That the Digital Code of DNA is highly complex specified information is without question.”
You merely corroborated what I wrote. I know you are repeating what Meyers asserts. However, I am not one to accept absolute assertions without question, no matter who the authority is. If I did, then a quote from Genesis 1 and the Spirit of Prophecy would settle it for me.
In my experience, every dogmatic, absolute assertion has been false, except for those things which are so by definition. And those assertions that are true by definition are never about the real world, but about abstract ideas that are incapable of falsification. And if it is incapable of falsification, then it is not science, but ideology. There is communism, Marxism, materialism, Freudism, and now, apparently informationism.
As I have admitted at the outset, I have not read Meyer’s book in which he asserts he can prove what you are claiming as absolute truth. So while I will not be dogmatic about saying he cannot possibly deliver what he promises, I am skeptical enough that I am not motivated to read it. Compare the four premises of MN that I accept cannot be proven (including the premise that there is an external world). Is the assertion of informationism more credible than that there is an external world? I can’t see how that claim could possibly be made.
That is, if I can’t accept the premise that there is an external world as being ontologically true, then I certainly cannot swallow the assertion that “Digital Information must necessarily come from a God-like mind.” After all, if there is no external world, how could there be any true information about said non existent world?
You write,
“Intelligent Design Creationists do not argue from "what we don't know" (GOG argument). This is a strawman argument.”
This dogmatic statement presupposes your previous dogmatism, which I cannot accept as absolute for previously stated reasons.
Must be human brainstorming, Chris will not accept supernatural, no way.
The World of Difference Between Cumulative and One-Step Selection
This blog has many pious statements about how we should not mock those who hold different views. But I propose that a more fundamental ethic is that we ought not create “straw men” by hideously distorting opposing ideas so that we can more easily debunk them.
This blog is to be severely faulted for not once having anyone decisively squash the utterly ignorant notion that evolutionary theory requires a belief in “one-step evolution,” or the idea that “a tornado passing over a junk yard can accidentally assemble a 747.” Here are some examples:
“If XXX wanted to prove evolution to us then the least he could suggest was if we put 100 chunks of raw iron ore in a tumbler, how long would we have to tumble before we had even one nut and a perfectly matching bolt that screwed themselves together. The answer is infinite time. But XXX only has at most 4.6 Billion years, not nearly enough for the impossible to happen. This is exactly the case of sexuality. There is a bolt that exactly fits the nut, in many different unrelated animals and plants. This NEVER can happen without ID. These attempts to make unguided, undirected evolution reasonable to the common mind, by using intelligently designed, engineered pieces to do it, is driving me crazy. You may know him better than I do, what's the problem? He seems like an intelligent man, but he keeps doing this.”
Also:
“Suppose we design a computer program whereby the letters of the alphabet and all the punctuation marks and spaces are chosen at random, do you think that after a million years the product will look like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica?”
What was the ringing answer to this utterly misguided challenge? “No.”
Now I happen to know that the above respondent has a very sophisticated scientific mind, but apparently decided that there was no hope for intelligent dialogue here and just decided to give up. I happen to think he is right for that particular person, but for the sake of this blog, more needs to be said.
Perhaps the classic response to this kind of ignorant, anti-evolutionary demagoguery was written by Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, p. 43-50, in chapter 3, entitled “Accumulating Small Change.” Dawkins writes in the last sentence of the first paragraph of, p. 43,
“The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the power of this cumulative selection as a fundamentally non-random process.”
Dawkins used several examples from nature, starting with the simplest:
A. Pebbles on the beach are not randomly arranged, but have been systematically sorted, arranged, and selected by the blind, random actions of waves.
To calculate the probability that waves would sort one size of pebble one way as opposed to pebbles of another size would be entirely misguided and misleading, because the actions of random waves affect different size pebbles in a consistently different way, making the probability tables based on randomness totally inapplicable.
B. A hole sorts non-randomly by admitting only objects smaller than its circumference and excluding all larger objects. This is what Dawkins calls a naturally occurring “sieve.”
Therefore to calculate the probability of smaller objects being admitted, where as larger objects were not, would be silly, because the size of the hole creates an insurmountable natural bias against objects larger than the hole’s circumference. What appears to be miraculous discrimination by the hole is therefore exactly what should be expected by an informed observer.
C. The orbiting speed of planets. Each planet must orbit the sun at a specific speed, given their distance from the sun, and their mutual gravitational pull, or they will either fly off into deep space, get sucked into the sun, or possibly change orbits.
Therefore, calculating the probability that they would be orbiting at exactly the specific speed they need to stay in orbit would be another abuse of probability theory, because this is another natural sieve. Objects that were not traveling at the right speed have already flown off into deep space, or have crashed into the sun.
But these are all examples of one simple sieve, equivalent to one dial on a combination lock, whereas living systems have something analogous to a combination lock with a huge number of dials.
D. The haemoglobin molecule (the red pigment in blood). This molecule consists of 4 chains of amino acids twisted together. Dawkins has us consider just one of those chains. That chain consists of 146 amino acids linked together. There are 20 kinds of amino acids. This means that each link has a 1/20 chance of being a particular amino acid, and represents one sieve. That means that to get 2 particular amino acids linked (that is 2 successive sieves), has a probability of the reciprocal of 20 x 20, or 1/400. To get a particular 146 link long chain (146 successive sieves) has a probability of the reciprocal of 20 to the 146th power, which is a 1 with 190 zeros behind it; an almost unfathomably large number. And this is only one of the 4 chains of amino acids required to make haemoglobin. (45)
At this point, Dawkins emphasizes that this is the result of cumulative, as opposed to one-step selection. That is, there are many successive sieves in which passing each sieve represents possessing a configuration that has significantly greater survival value in that particular environment over alternative configurations. Each living organism that survives a sieve, keeps the phenotypic expression that enabled it to survive, and then is subjected to the next environmental obstacle which represents the next natural sieve. At each stage, there are massive extinctions of organisms who do not possess the favorable configurations. But those who do possess the favorable configuration reproduce until the decimated species is replenished. Surviving each sieve is not a random process, but based on genetic (favorable amino acid configuration in this case) merit.
However, what constitutes genetic merit is only known ad hoc, or after the fact. In this sense, evolutionary pressures as well as the organisms are completely blind. No organism or Intelligent Designer knows in advance what particular environmental pressure it will encounter, and therefore what constitutes superior genes. But when that pressure comes, those who happen to possess the advantageous genetic configuration will be able to cope better than other organisms without it.
The Proverbial Typing Monkeys
At the bottom of p. 45, Dawkins begins talking about the rapidly changing shape of clouds that may resemble various things, including a sea horse or a smiling face. Then comes the dialogue from Shakespeare’s Hamlet in which Hamlet speculates regarding a particular shape of a cloud:
“Methinks it is like a weasel.”
Then, on page 46, Dawkins mentions the argument that a monkey bashing away at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (An excellent history of this argument, including Dawkins discussion of it in The Blind Watchmaker, can be found on Wikipedia under “infinite monkey theorem.”) Dawkins readily concedes that this would be virtually impossible by one-step selection.
But in order to contrast that impossibility with the tremendous power of cumulative selection, he operationally refines and limits this argument by restricting the literary output to the single sentence, “Methinks it is like a weasel,” (a 28 letter sentence) using a simplified key board consisting only of 26 capital letters and a space bar (27 keys), and a computer program that types randomly.
Then he added another condition to the program: that it select from among the first generation of 28 random letters the one that had the most similarity to the model sentence. Thus for the second generation, the random program would begin with those blanks already filled in correctly. Using this cumulative selection program, Dawkins was able to arrive at the model sentence in 43, 61, and 41 generations, respectively, which took only a few minutes on his computer. Had the computer been forced to try the same task by single step selection, Dawkins estimates it would have taken “…about a million million million million million years.” p. 49. Later on the same page, he writes,
“This belief, that Darwinian evolution is ‘random,’ is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom.”
However, it should be emphasized that Dawkins uses this experiment only to illustrate the conceptual difference between cumulative selection and single step selection. He explicitly admits that would be misleading to use this experiment to weigh in one way or another on the question of whether the forces of evolution are blind or mindful of the future:
“Although the money/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in several ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selection ‘breeding,’ the mutant ‘progeny’ phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase, “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.” Life isn’t like that. Evolution has no long term goal. There is no long distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection… The ‘Watchmaker’ that is cumulative natural selection is blind to the future and has no long term goal.” p. 50
Dawkins addresses that problem elsewhere. The book The Blind Watchmaker is 20 years old and most of you will claim you have read it. And yet, here we are.
Dennis, thanks for the foregoing. Most here are very congenial, and often offer "tongue in cheek" gigs. Some of us may occasionally forget to add the 🙂 after entry. i've been here for nearly a year, and believe we know each other fairly well. Doubt there is serious criticism by most. We have believers in God, agnostics, and the odd athiest, but we are friends.
Earl, I don't dispute what you assert. 🙂
I am not at all unhappy with the congeniality on this entire website. I don't even mind the sarcasm or sharp exchanges. And I have been on this website for as long as it has existed. My point was only that the deeper issue is having integrity by not horribly misrepresenting the ideas we are opposing. This thread has done a terrible job in that regard from the very beginning.
Dennis, I do not understand what Meyers has to do with this. I am trying to show you a logical proposition. Information in the form digital code only comes from a mind. DNA is such a code.
please!
Darrel, you are welcome to cut Meyers out of the equation and make those same assertions on your own authority if you wish. My reservations remain the same as before.
The fact that homosexuality exists is evidence of evolution being a hoax.
22,
Just when I thought Darrel's comprehension was shocking.. I realize it may be mine, because I cannot even begin to understand the reasoning of your statement!?
Chris, Hello. Well if Darrel's comprehension is out of wack, at least he is in good company 🙂
Monod and Popper and Harold
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143). Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science," in "Studies in the Philosophy of Biology," Macmillan: London, 1974, pp.259-284, p.270. Emphasis original).
"Wishful Thinking"
Franklin M. Harold, an evolutionary biologist and emeritus professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, writes: “We must concede there are presently no Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful
speculation.” Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order
of Life (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001), p. 205.
"Franklin M. Harold, an evolutionary biologist and emeritus professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, writes: “We must concede there are presently no Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful
speculation.” Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order
of Life (Oxford University Press, New York, 2001), p. 205."
Assuming this to be the current state of cell biology, (which I assume to be the case, though I am not particularly informed in this area), then this state of ignorance represents a present "gap" in scientific understanding. Into this gap, IDers wish to insert informationim, which means "a god-like intelligence must have done it!"
This seems no different to me, in principle, then William Paley's argument of the watch found in the forest. IOW, both seem to be GOG arguments. That does not imply, however, that this neo-Paleyan GOG argument can necessarily be solved by more scientific research, bcause we cannot know in advance what the limits of the scientific method (MN) are. There is no cosmic stop sign that says, "Halt! Science shall not progress beyond this line!" So science will continue hacking away, as it should.
Paley thought he had the absolute God proof in his day. So does almost every committed theist in their own era, going back to the Neanderthals and beyond, so far as we can tell. And that is probably a good thing, since every ruler used God's authority to keep people in line.
25,
Well sir, Creation, The Fall and the resulting sinful nature of man (including sinful homosexual behavior), is the explanation the Bible reveals about our origins and the fallen condition of man, as opposed to evolution. Marriage between a man and a woman was God's ideal for man. The sex act, procreation, the well designed reproductive systems of both man and woman (nipples and all), and the bond associated with such a union, in spite of our fallen nature, shows that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
If evolution on the other hand is a true explanation for our origins and the later development of homo sapiens, then, as the word evolution presupposes, surely the beneficial data found in the offspring of a species should lead to a more evolved state of improved reproductive processes or at least it should keep in line with a working reproductive system especially in terms of procreation being critically necessary for biological evolution to take place. Without sexual reproduction this isn’t logically possible as it needs millions(or is it billions) of years of sexual reproduction within a species for any significant changes to be noted. Any explanation therefore, based on evolution regarding homosexual behavior only proves that evolution is a hoax. The existence of homosexuals is proof of this. The fact that they claim to be born this way makes my case that it is a hoax stronger. There. Didn't mean to shock you! Would any evolutionist vouch that homosexuals are a result of speciation? Methinks not! Yeah its a hoax in my opinion and for this reason.
The Bible on the other hand has a reasonable explanation for homosexual behaviour: Sin.
22,
Thank you so much for that elaboration. The glass is no longer dark!!
Such brilliance has given me something to chuckle over all day, perhaps even into the next…
I think I'll borrow a line from Dennis:
"...I am not one to accept absolute assertions without question, no matter who the authority is. If I did, then a quote from Genesis 1 and the Spirit of Prophecy would settle it…"
If it works for you, I guess that's fine. …But, then perhaps not, because the Islamic Fundamentalist operates on the same ignorance, and that is not fine… Not with me anyway.
25,
Sir, apart from your usual quips, and your swipe at my 'ignorance' (Islamic Fundamentalist – as you accuse), I was expecting some form of rebuttal – but at least you got a chuckle out of it. My statement was just to poke at die-hard evolutionists like yourself, (among others).
By the way, your disdain for Muslims shows that you don't have much interaction or association with the Muslim community. Not all Muslims go around bombing people but perhaps you are not aware of this. There are many decent, respectable Muslims who are kind warmhearted people. Your view of them is rather fundamentalist too, but I won't call you ignorant of this as you're a much smarter person than I and have more faith because you believe in evolution.
I've just heard news that the Ottoman Empire was toppled. Perhaps that should allay your fears.
What does Evolution and Islamic Fundamentalism have in common? Death. ☺
22,
You will get no rebuttal from me on your assertions. There are plenty, but discussion of real facts is pointless when evidence has no credibility before a "Thus, saith the Lord".
Re Muslims. I have made no negative comment about "Muslims". I have only ever spoken of Fudamentalist, or radical, Muslims in a negative way. When have I ever suggested "all" Muslims go around bombing people? To suggest my view of "them" is rather fundamentalist, is to assume the truth of your assertion that I declare them all the same. Not so.
I actually believe in evolutionary processes operating in this world because I refuse to allow "faith" to be involved in my views of how the world is. Just because one can include the word "faith" in the same sentence as belief in "evolution" does not make it logical, nor does it make it a valid claim to suggest I have "more faith"!! Sorry.
You're too modest sir. It does take much more faith than I have to believe and accept evolution.
Bro, it takes no faith to accept an evolutionary process is present in this world and is responsible for vast amounts or even all of the way life is. None. 🙂
25
If you believe that your belief in evolution requires no faith then you are fooling yourself. I pitty your ignorance and blind devotion
When have I said I believe in "evolution"?
If you read my posts you will find I always qualify my terminology.
Yet another example of how people do not read what I really say.
25
O please please 25 lets not split hairs!!!
"Bro, it takes no faith to accept an evolutionary process is present in this world and is responsible for vast amounts or even all of the way life is. None. :)"
"accept" or "believe'" whats the difference. Lets not play silly childish games
Peter,
You missed it again…. "evolutionary process"…."vast amounts"…."or" even all"
Do you not get that those terms qualify "evolution" as such. Dennis has reminded us again and again of those very relevant 4 points. There are things that can not be explained by current scientific understanding. Abiogenesis is one of them. Abiogenesis is NOT evolution of course. My rule of thumb is that I refuse to hold a firm conviction where the evidence is thin. That goes for scientific conclusions and supernatural ones. I need not remind you where the evidence is thinnest. Or, shall I say absent!?
ps….just in case you miss the point of that.
I am not splitting hairs over "accept" and "believe". That never entered my head, and cannot even be implied in what I wrote. That would be a silly game.
For repetition add nauseum….Please read what I say!!
ps again… To give you an example of how I "hold" "beliefs". I do not even believe in (accept if it makes you happy) the Big Bang. There is some good evidence that the theory may be correct, or close to correct, but there are also other competing theories, some of which are gaining more merit as evidence comes to light.
O' the blindness of not seeing the unknown. Sorry Chris, the involuntary demand to follow any ism is BLIND FAITH. Locked inside a closed box,without reasoning, that with the unknowns, it is impossible to know for a certainty that ones faith choice is valid. Suggest we not be severe in any ridicule, or outright disregard for those of us with "lesser intellect". When we become rigid to where we ignore all info that is inconsistent with our faith, we may miss some vital data.
We have a onboard computer which allows us to consider & reason info. It is not disloyal to use it. The big stumbling block for man is limiting his brain to comprehend the illimitness of greatness of infinite space and intelligences, and refusing to consider the sense of a spiritual dimension of communication, and potential supernatural happenings. Why can't supernatural occurrencies be possible, along with other unknowns?? Why would one not give serious belief to supernormal when one already follows a blind belief?? Some have stated there is no second world outside. REALLY??? i believe not only second worlds, but potentially several. i don't know. You don't know. The ancient world (on Earth) left massive structures and artifacts & spectacular linear geometrics over hundreds of miles of diverse topography. Artist renderings of what appears to be spacecraft & equipment.
Consider that if DNA is a precise identity, we would all be derivities of Adam & Eve. We are not. What do we know of those contempories outside of Eden? Who were the Nephthilm, Gen 6: 2,4??? Location, location, location, Intelligence, Intelligence, intelligence. The massive Super Collider has nothing on the Human Brain, which with super Intelligent Design ability, built it. This world and all the other worlds out there, somewhere, are INTELLIGENT DESIGNED SYSTEMS.
Don't ever underestimate the MASTER OR MASTERS DESIGNERS. They are
reality. We are the priviledged designed.
What "ism" do I follow Earl?
As for not being severe. I get really weary of one thing here: Failure to really read what the other is saying.
Too often I see, or get, responses that pick up one or two points that can be used as ammunition or defense, while seeming to totally miss the critical points. Often these are points that would make their replies invalid if they were really understood.
Even take Darrels comment to Dennis below that "naturalism can not be falsified". How many times has Dennis reminded us of the 4 upfront premises or presuppositions. If Darrel took the time to ask if these apply to supernaturalism he would understand that his comment contributes nothing to the discussion and it can, in fact, must, be applied equally to supernaturalism. Can supernaturalism be falsified? No. Better to ask the question which can be "verified" imho. Dennis may see different.
So, yes, Earl, I get blunt and begin to wonder every so often, why bother? I so wish we could dialogue and discuss the real points and ideas that each person has, not just cherry pick for defense.
Dennis, what you are basically saying is that Naturalism can not be falsified. This is NOG.
actually, EGGNOG. Evolution Guaranties Gradualism•Naturalism of the Gaps.
Obviously an impasse between those who believe very strongly in supernatural events of original designs & continued happenings that defy uncertainty of of any known cause. And those who have to see the actual answers with their eyes, and or put their hands on the evidence (ala doubting Thomas). i very much appreciate your integrity and intelligence Chris, but am just as incredibly amazed that those who pursue the evolutionary theme that the "big bang", and endless time, supplies the potentiallities of life forms. How is it possible that one can observe the impossible complexities of life, DNA, CODE and the synergies of the various components, each particle, organ, nervous systems, enzynes, proteins, tissues, fluids, arteries and veins, sight, hearing, vocal, computer, feel, smell, taste, orgasms, etc etc, and be able to aver that no master planner was involved?? i am just as incredible that you find it difficult to observe these things as the origin of everything, as you are that i ( and others) are unable to consider that happenstance is the better choice. Some day we may know the answer to life, or, we may never know. And if not we've had a great adventure "in life". Glad i'm not a rock.
Earl, if God created the world by miracle, and wants humans to believe He did so, then he doesn't need anybody to "steady the ark" of belief, especially with bad or muddled arguments. Judging from the lack of any unambiguous evidence that He did so, then we might reasonably surmise that it is His will that his role in creation be kept a secret. If so, then perhaps the creationists are outing God against His will? Why else would God make it so hard to prove He did it?
"his comment contributes nothing to the discussion and it can, in fact, must, be applied equally to supernaturalism." Yes, Chris this is true. That is why I have said that Intelligent Design Creationism is not therefore based on gaps in knowledge but is known of information systems. My point is that if GOG is the only counter arguement then that reasoning also hits naturalism.
“…Intelligent Design Creationism is not therefore based on gaps in knowledge but is known of information systems.”
A claim and a belief in that claim is not the same as knowledge. What ideological adherent does NOT claim to have “knowledge”? So claims to knowledge are pretty cheap. I keep encountering the mantra that “DNA IS an information system,” and information systems only come from super-intelligent minds. While I have not read all the literature, as I have admitted at the outset, I see that equation as a big leap of faith, and am waiting for somebody to get beyond the ID talking points. If I thought that leap was plausible, I would read Meyer’s book.
“ My point is that if GOG is the only counter arguement then that reasoning also hits naturalism.”
The above statement apparently forgets (or ignores) rule #4 of MN, which is law of parsimony. So the point is invalid.
“Dennis, what you are basically saying is that Naturalism can not be falsified. This is NOG.
actually, EGGNOG. Evolution Guaranties Gradualism•Naturalism of the Gaps.”
Darrel, as Chris notes, you seem to have totally forgotten what I conceded at the outset: There cannot be any truth without a logic that defines truth. But every logic concerning the real world must begin with a premise (or premises) that has not been proven, and yet that unprovable premise (s) must nevertheless be the absolute judge of all subsequent data; and there can be no exception, because we encounter the problem of infinite regress whenever we try to prove the premises.
Given the necessity of using potentially fallible premises, ontological naturalism (the ideology that there is no supernatural) cannot consistently be held dogmatically because we cannot prove that the four premises needed to reason scientifically are necessarily “true.” MN readily concedes the ontological fallibility of those premises, but requires that they be followed in order for the practitioners to be entitled to label their conclusions as being “scientific.” MN discloses 4 presuppositions that may or may not be ontologically true, but cannot be proved or disproved.
Now if you wish to go searching for truth using some other unorthodox methodology that violates those procedures, and feel like telling MN to “kiss my behind!” then you are perfectly free to do so. Why not do that? Nobody is stopping you.
I suggest the reason is that science has been so successful that every cult wishes to have the blessing of science on their particular brand of reality for propagandistic purposes. We appear to be living in the era of Isa. 4:1 when it comes to science:
In that day seven women will take hold of one man and say, "We will eat our own food and provide our own clothes; only let us be called by your name. Take away our disgrace!"
If you think science is wrong as a methodology, then go out and prove it with your “informationism.” Revolutionize the thought world and embarrass the scientific world! To me, however, it appears to be no more than a digitized version of Paley’s GOG argument. But I could be wrong.
Dennis, my problem is epistemology. It seems as you define ‘science’ MN must always assume ontological naturalism to be faithful to its program. Therefore it is an epistemological circle. As Popper said, “how can you falsify it?” You can’t! I believe in MN too Dennis. It is the natural (obvious) way to understand the workings of things—instrumental and formal causes of things. But there are deeper levels to which Science can help us see—efficient causes . If we say, no, science can only show us natural causes, then archeology and forensics are not sciences?
This New View of Science is coming to us from the secular enlightenment and promoted for political ends. As Lewontin said:
“We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations”
Darrel,
As I explained earlier, MN does not require any beliefs regarding the real world. It only requires methodological assumptions the way a math word problem requires methodological assumptions. In the sense that every logic must be circular, then of course MN must also be circular, as I have admitted numerous times. But it is an admitted methodological circularity (out of logical necessity); not an epistemological circularity.
I have been studying Popper for over ten years, and have mentioned him previously on this thread, in connection with assumption #3. Despite his heroic work on the problem, as I explained, he could not really evade the problem of circularity in logic. His HD system was still circular, though as I explained, it was back-loaded. One simply cannot erect a deductive logic framework in which the major premise may be falsified, though in Popper’s case, he does some slight of hand, wherein the outcome can refute the hypothesis-premise. That is why I call it back loaded (the experiment outcome can refute the hypothesis-premise). By giving the experimental outcome such power, Popper has presupposed regularity in the universe without admitting it. For without assuming regularity, there would be no reason to suppose that any hypothesis should be able to reliably predict an experimental outcome.
I am skeptical of Aristotle’s four categories of causation (including efficient cause) because Aristotle presupposed teleology. Since evolutionary theory rejects teleology, and I don’t worship Aristotle, when I think scientifically, I am not going to inject the notion that there must be an agency that caused it.
You write,
“This New View of Science is coming to us from the secular enlightenment and promoted for political ends.”
Wrong. According to Ronald Numbers, it was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a (Christian) Wheaton College philosopher. De Vries distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God." The Creationists, p. 377, a book that I am now reading.
As for Lewontin, I have already commented on that specific quote. Suffice it to say that in that statement, he appears not to understand the difference between methodological and ontological naturalism. But maybe that statement was taken out of context.
An oversight:
" If we say, no, science can only show us natural causes, then archeology and forensics are not sciences?"
The last time I checked, humans were indisputably part of the natural world, as they can be observed by the five senses. Would you like to dispute this???
Dennis, let's says we are part of the SETI research team. One Evening the VLA picks up signature noise from the Pegesus area. The signal shows all the signs of communication.
without getting into the infinite regress problem, can we at least say that we are doing science at SETI??
The possibility that there are other intelligent forms of life in the universe is actually implied by the theory of evolution, since there is no reason why the same evolutionary process that happened on earth could not happen somewhere else in the universe. If fact, I doubt that there is a secular minded evolutionist that would forbid such a possibility.
If such evolved creatures exist, then it is theoretically possible that they send interceptible signals through space just as humans do. It is also quite likely that even when the particular code such entities use is unknown to humans, it can be distinguished from random noise. Therefore, IMO it would be a plausible scientific activity to set up listening devices to monitor potential signals passing through outer space, and SETI is a scientific project.
I know the theist types like to jump on this admission as making praying to God just as scientific as SETI, blah, blah blah. That is desperate reasoning.
Thank you Dennis, so then yes ID is 'science.' Intelligent Design is a scienctific interprise. I agree!
Your conclusion would follow IF AND ONLY IF ID were based on the same principles as SETI, which are completely scientific, so far as I can determine. But all of my information about the ID movement, which includes your statements on this thread, my personal conversation with Paul Johnson, his book, as well as chapter 17 (p. 373-398) of the revised version of Ron Number’s book, The Creationists, point in the opposite direction. ID is trying to redefine science to include the supernatural, which would defeat the very purpose of doing science as MN.
The most obvious fallacy is that you and other ID enthusiasts are apparently equating the possibility of extra-terrestrial life (entirely speculative at this point, but still within the realm of naturalistic possibilities) with the supernatural. That is a HUGE categorical blunder.
My Centennial Sabbath School class in Loma Linda U is taking up The Creationists, and I will probably be presenting a paper addressing the ID chapter.
Correction:
That should have been Phillip Johnson, and his book was Darwin on Trial.
Darrel, I'll let Dennis respond to the content of your point, I find his input of great value.
My beef with it? PLEASE, read that quote in what I suspect is original content. You will find no underlining. No italics, and a different meaning when taken in context.
I've shown you this before, and you continue to ignore it and post the same thing over and over!
http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_3886.html
Yes, I added the underlining, but you are wrong Chris, it is in context.
Chris,
Great catch! I have just read Lewontin’s entire review of Sagan’s Billions and Billions of Demons at the link you provided. IMO, Darrel has entirely misunderstood the review and the context of this quote. Lewontin is despairing at the unbridgeable intellectual gulf that exists between the unwashed masses and the thinking of elite scientists. I am sympathetic.
Of course he is despairing; no one thinks he is a
ID advocate.
I did not know who he was, so you had me fooled. The fact that you knew he was an evolutionist and still insisted you were quoting him in proper context gives me serious reservations about your academic judgement, and will make me skeptical of any other quote you produce. This whole thread was based on misguided cherrypicking, though, so I should not be surprised.
Carl Sagan:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]
Bad, bad religion. Take that, and that harpoon!!! Perhaps the evolutionist scene creates lots of mal-contents. In almost every sally of a point, it is immed. followed by attack on religion. Ridicule, arrogance, "How could you ever give that thought the light of day"?? Even if wrong, ("IMPOSSIBLE") we would rather die than switch. Hmmmmm. ::))
Dennis, may I offer some information to help correctly explain Intelligent Design. Advocates of this science do not claim that said investigations can prove God. For example William Dembski explains, "Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy." The Design Revolution, p. 42
Intelligent Design does not attempt to be a ‘theory of everything.’
Intelligent Design itself is silent on quesions about whether the designer is natural or supernatural. Intelligent Design is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was.
Mike Behe explains that “Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel–fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo. "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165 "Hypothesis non fingo" means to make no attempt at a hypothesis.
Since ID is based solely upon empirical data, it must remain silent on such questions. Of course there are many Christians working in field, along with agnostics and Buddists. But Intelligent Design itself respects the limits of scientific inquiry, and thus refuses to inject discussions about theological questions into science. Stephen Meyer explains:
“”Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that. Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in this world, the theory cannot determine whether or not the designing intelligence putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience. Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information in life acted from the natural or the "supernatural" realm. Instead, the theory of intelligent design merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause (with power, at least, equivalent to those we know from experience) and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious, intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information. The theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence, even if philosophical deliberation or additional evidence from other disciplines may provide reasons to consider, for example, a specifically theistic design hypothesis.”” Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (Harper, 2009), pages 428-429
Intelligent Design is primarily a historical science, it follows the principles of uniformitarianism to study present-day causes and then applies this to the historical record. It does this to infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied.
As I said, Intelligent Design is a historical science and it is methodologically equivalent to neo-Darwinism. Both studies present-day causes and then applies them to the historical record to infer the best explanation for the origin of phenomena. Intelligent design uses uniformitarian reasoning based upon the principle that "the present is the key to the past." Darwinian evolution applies this method by studying causes like mutation and selection in order to recognize their abilities .
Evolutionists attemt to explain the historical record in terms of those causes like seeking to recognize the known effects of mutation and selection in the historical record. Intelligent design applies this same method by studying causes like intelligence in order to recognize its causal abilities and effects in the present-day world.
So whether we appeal to materialistic causes like mutation and selection, or non-material causes like intelligent design, we are using the same basic uniformitarian reasoning and scientific methods that are well-accepted in historical sciences. ID and neo-Darwinism are thus methodologically equivalent.
I don't know what Numbers has written on this but I hope he hase this basic and critical point straight.
Darrel,
1. Some Consistency Please. My first comment is that just a while ago you were chiding me for bringing Meyer into this discussion (“Dennis, I do not understand what Meyer has to do with this. I am trying to show you a logical proposition. Information in the form digital code only comes from a mind. DNA is such a code. please!”) and now you are the one injecting the scholarship of Meyer, Dembski, etc., into the discussion. OK, but let’s have some consistency here from day to day. If ID scholarship is relevant today, then it was relevant yesterday also.
2. A Priori Assumptions are Unavoidable. Everything you write here only confirms Numbers judgement that ID (as articulated by Phillip Johnson) is all about rejecting the notion that biological science should rule out non-mechanical explanations on an a priori basis. As I have commented many times before, every logic requires an a priori premise to define truth, and there is apparently no way around this problem. So while this makes science less than absolute truth, it is not some big“Gotcha!” that Johnson thinks it is, and the same problem (the necessity of a priori assumptions) exists with any other conceivable kind of truth.
Ultimately, IMO, science must be evaluated pragmatically; that is, has it been productive in increasing human understanding of the natural universe, compared to disciplines that use a different set of a priori assumptions? Most people would say yes. Those who say no are welcome to try other logical schemes. It is a free country.
3. Still a Glorified GOG Argument. Trying to differentiate ID from Paley’s deity by saying such an intelligence need not be benevolent, could be Plato's demi-urge, some mystical new age force, space aliens, etc, etc, are merely semantic attempts to conceal the basic identity of Paley’s argument with ID. They are all GOG arguments, but ID only wants to quibble with the “God” label for this intelligence, despite the fact that they are attributing to this intelligence the power to perform scientific feats in ancient times that modern scientists can only dream of doing. ID seems to be based on the ideological demand that there must always be an inherent gap in human understanding of nature so long as it considers only inanimate mechanical forces. Otherwise, why not just embrace MN and have some patience to see how things shake out in 200 more years or so?
This ID bashfulness about using the word “godlike” to describe its incredible biological powers, IMO, seems to be an attempt to semantically exaggerate the difference between themselves and the creationists. Nevertheless, I will concede that ID does seem to represent a compromise between evolutionary theory and creationism in that it only insists that there be some gaps, whereas it otherwise seems willing to go sliding down the evolutionary path from creationism to naturalism.
4. Having Some Similarities to Science NOT Enough. Just because ID limits itself “… solely” to empirical data does not suffice to make it scientific, according to the rules of MN. It must also work within the principle of continuity and the law of parsimony, both of which are blatantly violated by ID. While going 2 for 4 as a hitter in major league baseball isn’t bad, that doesn’t cut it in MN, nor in my math class when I was a high school teacher in LAUSD.
5. A Parochial Interest in Preserving GAPS. To assert that this ideological insistence on “GAPS” helps humans to “…infer the best explanation for the origin of the natural phenomena being studied,” is entirely self congratulatory ideological triumphalism, since it necessarily presupposes that there must be some superhuman intelligence to explain for how the natural world came to be, whereas that presuppositions may be wrong. A potentially wrong explanation is not necessarily the "best explanation." I would also agree, however, that the ideological claims of materialism are equally triumphalist and may also be wrong.
I am agnostic as to which side is ontologically correct. However, if the integrity of MN as a research program is to be preserved, then ID must be identified as pseudo-science, and be opposed by science, since it presupposes on an a priori basis the futility of natural explanations for the world, and will arguably even have a parochial interest in preserving the “GAPS” rather than seeking to fill them with naturalistic explanations.
These, at least, are some of my preliminary observations.
A friend of mine, Casey Luskin put on paper the following areas of Intelligent Design research:
ID and Biochemistry:
Observation:
Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity — such as codes and languages — invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.[1]
Hypothesis (Prediction):
Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function — indicating high levels of CSI.
Experiment:
Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.[2]
Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.[3]
Conclusion:
The high levels of CSI — including irreducible complexity — in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
ID and Paleontology:
Observation:
Intelligent agents rapidly infuse large amounts of information into systems. As four ID theorists write: "intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information … the intelligent design of a blueprint often precedes the assembly of parts in accord with a blueprint or preconceived design plan."[4]
Hypothesis (Prediction):
Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
Experiment:
Studies of the fossil record show that species typically appear abruptly without similar precursors.[5]
The Cambrian explosion is a prime example, although there are other examples of explosions in life's history. Large amounts of complex and specified information had to arise rapidly to explain the abrupt appearance of these forms.[6]
Conclusion:
The abrupt appearance of new fully formed body plans in the fossil record is best explained by intelligent design.
ID and Systematics:
Observation:
Intelligent agents often re-use functional components in different designs. As Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells explain: "An intelligent cause may reuse or redeploy the same module in different systems … [and] generate identical patterns independently."[7]
Hypothesis (Prediction):
Genes and other functional parts will be commonly re-used in different organisms.[8]
Experiment:
Studies of comparative anatomy and genetics have uncovered similar parts commonly existing in widely different organisms. Examples of "extreme convergent evolution" show re-use of functional genes and structures in a manner not predicted by common ancestry.[9]
Conclusion:
The re-use of highly similar and complex parts in widely different organisms in non-treelike patterns is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
ID and Genetics:
Observation:
Intelligent agents construct structures with purpose and function. As William Dembski argues: "Consider the term 'junk DNA.' … [O]n an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function."[10]
Hypothesis (Prediction):
Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.
Experiment:
Numerous studies have discovered functions for "junk DNA." Examples include functions for pseudogenes, introns, and repetitive DNA.[11]
Conclusion:
The discovery of function for numerous types of "junk DNA" was successfully predicted by intelligent design.
It doesn't matter how many defeatist GAP arguments you throw up against the wall, hoping some will stick. ID is still anti-thetical to the spirit of science, with an obvious vested interest in NOT finding material explanations. How can "not wanting to find material explanations" be an acceptable attitude to have in research program devoted to finding material explanations?
Besides, I happen to know that every claim made above with regard to inherent irreducible complexity is at least hotly contested by (if not refuted by) evolutionist theorists, some of whom are serious Christians. In any case, MN is only a research program, and does not assert that there MUST BE mechanical explanations for everything.
Much of Darrel's quotes above re: INTELLIGENT design, i consider relevant. We don't know. To presume we do is folly. However, re: "ID and neo-Darwinism are thus methodologically equivalent", i can't subscribe to. Darwinism is a subject of observation and theory of one man, of the 19th century. Intelligent Design is to me, (an arm chair student of the 21st century) a constant view of intelligence in action, in observation of the world around us, and the daily inventions of ever increasing complexity & expansion of tools the intellect have access to. The ever increasing ability to explore the depth of diminutive components of structures or systems.
Why must we continually argue points that are impossible to agree on. Lets live & let live. Your ok, and i'm ok.
Regarding, the assertion, "… Intelligent Design is a historical science and it is methodologically equivalent to neo-Darwinism," I have already shown above that this claim is untrue. (It follows only some, but not all of the rules of MN. "Some" doesn't cut it.)
But you contradict yourself when you give your own reasons why you reject this equation in favor of ID. Neo-Darwinism is not at all the same as Darwinism, so it is a non-seuitur to argue that you side with ID on the basis that "Darwinism" was the "theory of one man of the 19th century." What happened to the "Neo-Darwinism" that you started the argument with?
Neo-Darwinism was not the theory of one man, was it? Yet that is what you are supposed to be arguing about.
But at least you are right in the end: Yes, you are OK, and I am OK. 🙂
A Priori Assumptions are Unavoidable. Everything you write here only confirms Numbers judgement that science sejecting the notion that biological science should rule out non-mechanical explanations on an a priori basis. As I have commented many times before, every logic requires an a priori premise to define truth, and there is
I am not sure what happened above, sorry. I was saying, "A Priori Assumptions are Unavoidable.". Everything you write confirms that science should reject the notion that biological science should rule out non-mechanical explanations," not an a priori basis. But on an as meeded basis. When positive evidence demands it.. I am beginning to see why do not like the true methods of Intelligent Design is because need the GOG straw man to attack.
Darrel, I can't be sure what you meant by the above, but if you are challenging my statement that a priori assumptions (premises) are unavoidable in any logical framework, then please provide an example that refutes my statement. If you meant something else, then please clarify.
Darrel,
I'm interested to know, in brief and succinct terms, with no quoting:
What are your criteria for something to qualify as "positive evidence"?
This is not to say I agree with your assertion. I will be interested in what Dennis responds with. I am simply wondering how you determine "positive evidence".
Chris, I would say that positive evidence is when a set of data (observed phenomena) can be described by "uniform sensory experience," that is actually observed and defined, and any interpretation of it follows the rules of logic.
I have never seen any such thing as this "positive evidence" for this God-like intelligence that Darrel keeps dogmtically insisting there is. Remember, he first started out by insisting that no scholarship was needed at all, because it was absolutely logical (comment #1), like 1+1 = 2. Then he put out all this defeatist scholarship that in effect, argues,
"See? This is impossible to explain mechanically today, so a God-like intelligence had to do it! I believe it. That settles it!"
But it is not the data that is problematic; it is only the defeatist GOG spin the ID theorists project onto that data. ID amounts to a fundamentalism in itself. Who made the rule of intellectual instant gratification that demands understanding today, or declares that it must be mechanically unexplainable forever? Why is today the pivotal date in history that forever decides what is or is not mechanically explainable? Is today the scientific analogue to the dreaded "closing of probation" that SDAs have long feared? If it is not today, then when does that absolute cutoff date come for science, after which everything unknown must be declared forever unknowable, thereby usshuring in the reign of ID?
This is not to say that in the end, everything will be explained mechanically. Maybe not. But in the meantime, science keeps grinding away searching out the mechanical universe, because that is what science is supposed to do. Sure, there are some science fundamentalists (materialists) who swear that scientifically derived knowledge is the only knowledge there is about the universe, just as there are fundamentalists about almost every other thing. But that doesn't have to be your thing, or my thing.
In the SETI discussion, I conceded (along with every other evolutionary thinker), that extra-terrestrial intelligent life may exist, though that was an entirely speculative hypothesis. ID, however, turns this hypothetical possible existence into a dogma as undeniable as the Trinity, the True Sabbath, or some other unnegotiable Christian doctrine, on the basis of GOG logic.
Is it mechanically unexplainable forever? Why is today the pivotal date in history that forever decides what is or is not mechanically explainable? Dennis, is this not 'naturalism of the gaps???"
"Why is today the pivotal date in history that forever decides what is or is not mechanically explainable?"
Because ID has already declared certain things unexplainable and installed an intelligent entity to fill that gap. What if scientists had done that, say 100 years ago with a phenomenon that was not then mechanically explainable? Using the same reasoning as ID theorists today, they would have installed a god-like intelligence to explain it, and then would have had to evict that god-like intelligence when the mechanical explanation was subsequently found.
My point (which I thought was obvious) is this: Why not wait a bit on filling those gaps in order to minimize the embarrassing cosmic evictions costs? What is the rush? Why does that gap have to be filled "today" with GOG? Is it because God is otherwise homeless? Is it because some people cannot stand to have some problems unresolved?
Positive evidence is logically tight interpretation based on the strong inference of 'common experience.' Logic demands and common experience verifies that digital code is complex language and information which only comes from a mind. Our and simple. DNA is such digital code!!
Why construct a very complicated theory, from what has never been observed to explain digital code in any other way?
Well, well, i support Darrel's logic re: positive evidence of ID. i too submit that rational reasoning & logic doesn't require scholarship in the specialized area of mechanization (hard steel you can feel with your hands & see with your eyes), but the power of mentality to perceive that other powers exist that you can't physically put your hands on. i submit the fact that mankind is still on Earth, is evidence of a power or powers that reside or resided outside Earth. Without restraints imposed by a mediator, outside of man, the insanity and meglomania of gifted idiots, like Godless Joseph Stalin, and egocentric Adolph Hitler, would have laid down a hydrogen fallout that would have caused the death of every living creature on Earth, should they have had these weapons before going to war. Outside Earth is a power or powers that pull the strings for what happens here. You don't like it, andyou won't understand it that powers beyond your control are in contrtol of Earth's fate, destiny. You don't like it that these powers haven't consulted you on how they have made things, and control all weightier matters, and haven't even given you the hard facts, or dropped in occassionally to say, HI THERE, but until you recognize the spiritual sensual dimension of the Almighty presence, you will never providethe element for your equation, or have the answer. Gravity for example, you can't see it, but it definitely keeps you grounded, pulling you toward the Earth's center, eh, sometimes that is. i must differ w/some here re: humanism being a moral rock that anchors the soul of man to goodness and tolerance, without the restraining powers of religion. Although you can lay at the doorstep of religionism, examples of torturism, terrorism, slaveism, murderism, and annihlilationism, and sundry other isms, mankindism's only recommendationism is because of one known predicateism, GOD IS LOVE, as displayed in the life and Earthly death of JESUS CHRIST.
Wait, I must consult a dictionary. What is the meaning of "mankindism's" and "predicateism"? Shakespeare was a master at coining new words, but he has left an enormous body of work which no one has yet attempted to emulate–until now.
People have always felt "invisible presence" and whether demons or angels, there has never been anything other than an individual's "feeling." A very poor method of supporting evidence for their existence.
Both my two children when small had an "invisible playmate" with whom they talked and "played." They even found years later they had chosen the same name "Lonesome Leonard" for this invisible playmate. Today, as adults, they no longer have an invisible friend. Some never outgrow the need for one.
I always love it whenever you drop in, Elaine! Yes, "being a child," or being a grownup has little to do with chronological age.
“Positive evidence is logically tight interpretation based on the strong inference of 'common experience.'”
The obvious problem is that you are confusing the ambiguous sensory data in itself with your heavily biased interpretation of said sensory data. The unambiguous evidence of an intelligent entity would be for us all to walk into a room to meet Mr. Ivan Dang (ID hereafter), who has agreed to be interviewed. We all shake his hand, get his business card from him, see his photograph of his family, inspect his drivers licence, take a group photo, and then sit down to interview him for lets say two hours, on whatever subject we please, including his ideas on theology, science, and politics.
That would be an example of “positive evidence” of his intelligent existence that none of us would argue about. Is DNA structure just as unambiguous evidence for the existence of Mr. ID that we should not even question? Hardly.
“Why construct a very complicated theory, from what has never been observed to explain digital code in any other way?”
To say that “Some god-like intelligent entity did it!” is actually the most complicated theory of all, because you would then have to explain how that god-like entity came to have so much intelligence and desire to do all this stuff with nature, and such an explanation (if we could even call it that) would hardly be science, now, would it? So “God did it!” is not the panacea you apparently think it is. As to your criterion of direct observation, has anyone ever actually observed this supposed “intelligent entity” at work? You know the answer. So why use it against evolutionary theory??
Evolutionary theory is the simplest possible explanation there is, because it does not even need to posit the existence of any non-human intelligent entity at all, and therefore conforms to the law of parsimony. ID does not.
I am happy you are not biased Dennis.
Alas, since I don't choose my answers randomly, I must confess to being biased. So your happiness based on that premise must unfortunately be short lived. 🙁
I wonder what motives (or should I say agenda) would drive seemingly intelligent people to blatantly deny the glaring evidence in favor of intelligent design as a meaningful explanation for the remarkable phenomena on our planet and beyond. At least they can admit intelligent design even if they choose to deny at their own peril an Intelligent Designer.
“I wonder what motives (or should I say agenda) would drive seemingly intelligent people to blatantly deny the glaring evidence in favor of intelligent design as a meaningful explanation for the remarkable phenomena on our planet and beyond.”
Underlying motives for the beliefs of others are something that may be interesting for some to speculate about, but I have all along been advocating MN, which only requires methodological or procedural integrity, and frowns upon strong ontological denials or assertions of any kind, blatant or not.
Intelligent people need no explanations for why there are differences of opinion on subjects which can never be verified.
Freud and his followers might disagree. 🙂
Freud and his followers might disagree. 🙂
there is doubtless no subject on which there will be complete agreement. Disagreement is to be expected when there are differing opinions. This site is a perfect example. Abstract subjects and ideas are always subject to more varied opinions that concrete expressions.
Well, 22, I personally feel many people's teeth are set on edge by experience with abusive religion and in the process of freeing themselves have discovered secularism as the only means of extrication. I do not judge such. But I pray that inspite of distrust we all can put aside our biasis and truly communicate.
When I reed theses comments I just smile. To who we trying to fool? All the participants in AT at one period in their lives believed that God created the heavens and earth. So writing in this forum about “ID” is absurd. To whom we are trying to convince?
“The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
"Intelligent people need no explanations" [Mrs Nelson].
Evolution is unashamedly passed off as the best possible explanation for our origins, existence and mega extreme mind-boggling complex biological design even though it can't be can't be verified as an objective empirical a priori explanation, largely so, I would say, because it does not have 1] observed eye-witnesses, 2] it cannot be reproduced and 3] it doesn't work (E-coli is still E-coli) – so why is it still promoted as the best possible scientific explanation?
Just saying that evolution theory is the best possible scientific explanation even though it cannot be verified by intelligent people is calculated a cop-out used in order to deny intelligence and design in the phenomena that we can observe. To me, evolution was not discovered: it was invented. The word was hi-jacked and put in the same sentence with science to make it look legitimate and propagated by forcefully teaching it to school kids in order to brainwash them into accepting is as a real part of biology.
At best a pseudo-science or philosophical belief: at worst a big hoax.
22,
"…so why is it still promoted as the best possible scientific explanation?"
Because it IS!!
I wonder if you and Darrel would do me a favour.
1. Explain what you understand to be the difference between a priori and a posteriori, and how each approach would be applied in practice.
2. Explain for me why a correct understanding and application of a posteriori should NOT render it obsolete to demand "eye witnesses" or "reproducibility".
Chris, could you flesh out your question please. By the way Mr. and Mrs. Olsen were visiting the States last week here. They visited our church in Fargo. They said they said Hello to you. We were talking about Australia, places to visit and how to travel.
Because it is! Really? No so fast
The fundaments of evolution:
We evolve from simple to complex by mutations in other words the mutations are positive and transmissible to the next generations.
There is not reproducible evidence that supports these fundaments.
The overwhelming evidence shows us that mutations are deleterious and lethal; it has been reported close to 6000 diseases related alterations on the gene. Where are the positive mutations? Please don’t bring the sickle cell disease example the gene is so broken that even the mosquitos don’t like that gene.
Genetically are we getting better? Sadly no. Every single generation passes to next hundreds of mutations and is accumulative. So our grand parents gave to our parents a share of mutations and our parents gave us what they received from their parents as well their own new mutations. Genetically we are going down no up!
The reproducible unchallenged evidence crushes the fundaments of evolution.
"Every single generation passes to next hundreds of mutations and is accumulative."
Woe to humanity! This is corroborated by EW, who says Adam was about 12 feet tall and lived nearly a millennium. Now we are less than half the height, and are lucky to live 10% as long. Presumably, life expectancy has been decreasing with each generation since Adam. Isn't this confirmed by all the scientific data?
Dennis
In this case the “woe for humanity” is given by every respectable population geneticist. By the way all of them are evolutionist. Michael Lynch in his acceptance paper for the national academy of science stated the humans, as specie in 200 to 300 years will have significant morphological physiological and neurobiological deteriorations.
We are in “genetic entropy” putting in simple words “genetic meltdown”.
Where is the scientific evidence that we are getting better? If we remove all the medical help the life spam is 37 to 43 years. This is a fact in regions where there is not medical interventions
David,
May I invite you to answer my two questions which I put to Darrel and 22?
If you address those two points with care, you will probably realise that your point above does nothing to demonstrate the falisity of my statement that evolutionary theory IS the best possible scientific explanation today.
David, you are an educated and experienced man, a point you are quick to remind us of from time to time. Obviously you don't have to, but I would appreciate if you did address those two points. When you, and the others have done so, I'm happy to give my view of them, with an illustration, and also tell you how, and why, I believe your point above fits, and fails, in relation to them.
As one commenter here, what I personally cannot respect is people avoiding a point, or refusing to answer a question, but continuing to come out with material that flows freely and abundantly from their "pet theme". Please don't do that to me…
Is he talking about me ?? 🙂
Darrel,
You asked me to flesh this out a bit. Here's the original format:
1. Explain what you understand to be the difference between a priori and a posteriori, and how each approach would be applied in practice.
2. Explain for me why a correct understanding and application of a posteriori should NOT render it obsolete to demand "eye witnesses" or "reproducibility".
Number 1. When I am asking for the difference, this can include their "approach", their "methodology", or how each would be used in approaching a question, problem or theory.
Number 2. It seems to me that if someone correctly understands and applies an a posteriori method, they would/should know that demanding "eye witnesses", or "reproducibility" is silly.
22 demanded eye witnesses and reproducibility. I am asking how this demand can be supported if one correctly understands a posteriori.
(ps I am taking for granted that there will be no argument as to the validity of an a posteriori approach, because if point 1 is addressed that becomes pretty self evident!)
another ps…. Please note: These questions and points are put within the context of discussion re evolutionary theory.
Dennis
In this case the “woe for humanity” is given by every respectable population geneticist. By the way all of them are evolutionist. Michael Lynch in his acceptance paper for the national academy of science stated the humans, as specie in 200 to 300 years will have significant morphological physiological and neurobiological deteriorations.
We are in “genetic entropy” putting in simple words “genetic meltdown”.
Chris, "my statement of evolution theory IS the best possible scientific explanation today." please inform me, the a posteriori explanation of what?
Earl,
…Of the theory of evolution.
Evolution found Neanderthal intermingled with Homo sapiens.
Evolution was the best explanation.
Evolution later found Neanderthal to be genetically intermixed with Homo sapiens.
Evolution was still the best explanation.
Evolution finally found Neanderthal predated Homo sapiens.
Evolution is still the best scientific explanation today.
The logic is obvious. It will always be the best explanation.
22
My understanding of a priori or posteriori is vey basic but fundamental for serious science. The posteriori is based on observation of empirical evidence (reproducible experimentation) the rest is self-explanatory.
What I stated in previous comment is based not in speculations or philosophical arguments, is sustained by the best reproducible evidence. These facts are unchallenged. This is not a small den to the theory of evolution is a demolition to its fundaments. The theory is falsified.
David, how do you justify inserting "(reproducible experimentation)" in that sentence? To do so indicates an utter failure to understand the very concept under discussion!
The key is in the context of “serious science”
“Empirical evidence is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation ”
“In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of experimental desing ”
Now that I clarified my point, lets get out of semantics, and face a more substantial dialogue.
Already I present the evidence, the fundaments of evolution are unsustainable therefore the theory of evolution is falsified. This not a minor statement, is a devastating blow.
i assume you are ref: MN. If so, the following: scientific explanation to describe the actual measureable elements, actions, reactions, processes, to determine the answer to a question, that is measureable by actual experimentation, utilizing physical properties and tools, and can be replicated over & over by other test groups. i submit that under that criteria, the resulting scientific answers are relevant when involved in development of scientific inventions of tools, equipment, medical apparatus and meds, and systems. These of course meet the a priori test, as it relates to "on Earth" systematics, but can't be extrapolated outside Earth's gravity strength, except for some elementary "MOON" experimentation. As far as outer space is concerned, other than recognition of perhaps some identifiable "elements maybe evident", there is nada, nothing that gives any explanation of how life forms originated. Nothing out there that can seed, support and sustain life as it exists on Earth. Nothing. That is the thorn in the flesh of evolution.
2b r not 2b, art thou the inquisitor? Hark, a saber slash, a trellis smash, a body crash.
OK Chris, here we go; Epistemolo 101 . a priori is that logically true by definition and logic. An example: “Digital Code or any “Information” (not Crystal formation) is “Thinking,” a product of Mind. This “A Priori Assumption is Unavoidable" as Dennis like to say. Another example: a bachelor is unmarried; By Definition and the rules of logic!
By contrast posteriori must be investigated to confirm. These two epistemologies (approaches of) are often intertwined like the two strands of DNA itself—one supports the other, but they remain separate and must not be confused one with the other.
Darrel,
Can you just clarify for me what you mean by "crystal formation" please?
Sometimes people confuse "specified Information" (code) with shannon information or the patterns in crystal formation or a pattern of any kind–snow flakes. so I was just clarify in "information."
Darrel,
"…a priori is that logically true by definition and logic. .."
Your example: “Digital Code or any “Information” (not Crystal formation) is “Thinking,” a product of Mind. This “A Priori Assumption is Unavoidable" as Dennis like to say. "
Note:
You say this "a priori assumption is unavoidable". Your first mistake. It is not singular. There are multiple assumptions.
* The application of the term "digital code", to what, and why?
* The definition of "information" and attempt to declare it different or separate from "crystal [in]formation".
* The declaration all these are "thinking" and a "product of mind".
The next issue is this. How do you know these a priori assumptions are unavoidable
Yes, Dennis has shown us very clearly, there are points of regress in the search for answers and methods at which one is left with no choice but to rest up assumptions, or axioms, if you like.
Here is where you have either failed to understnd a posteriori, or failed to apply it. The way to test the validity of an assumption, statement, theory, etc is to subject it to a posteriori scrutiny!!
IF you do this to the list of * assumptions above you may well find, in fact are sure to find, that none of them are "unavoidable" at all. Therefore, they are actually indefensible.
Obviously, you love Dembski. Here is how one person described his leaps in logic. Leaps built upon similar "anavoidable assumptions. Assumptions which fail when examined from an a posteriori approach.
This is regarding Dembski's Complex Specified Information" drivel where he has attempted to prove Design. (Mind)
"…Here we have another great leap in Dembski's assumption that, if a pattern exists prior to a possibility being actualized, it must be causal. Anyone trained in statistics must know the danger in making assumptions of causality simply because a correlation between two variables is noted. Correlations do not imply causality between the correlated variables. For example, the correlation between malaria and swamps was observed long ago. The disease malaria was incorrectly attributed to the bad (mal) air (aria) near swamps. The correlation was correctly noted, but the assumption of causality was flawed. While a correlated pattern and actualized possibility may have a related cause, one cannot assume the pattern caused the actualized possibilty. Accordingly, this proposal for detecting design is highly suspect. This is a critical error." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html
Let me remind you of just one of your causal leaps in logic. Information becomes thinking, thinking becomes mind. And, yes, I suppose that becomes proof for God at some fanciful point.
Chris, How can you get something soo confused ?
Chris, do you understand a priori ??
Yes, I believe I do.
Darrel,
Perhaps there is something being missed here.
I asked the question: "How do you know these a priori assumptions are unavoidable?"
There are, as you note, some statements or declarations that are, by their very logic, "unavoidable". Your (Wiki's) example of "all batchelors are unmarried" is one. You do not need to leave your seat to know that statement is true. It is a logical and unavoidable statement.
The problem is that you cannot just make an assertion or claim about something, such as "information is thinking…is product of Mind", and simply declare it to be an unavoidable a priori fact. A posteriori is, among other things, primarily a means of justifying a statement. Therefore, it is also a means of invalidating a statement!
What I am saying to you, is that your "unavoidables", if examined in this manner, may in fact NOT be demonstrated as "unavoidable". It is here that there is a relationship to what Dennis has been talking about with MN and the basis upon which it "unavoidably" has to build.
Your unavoidable "a priori" statements are well down the causal chain, and I fail to see how they can stand up to a posteriori examination, let alone be shown to be "unavoidable a priori facts". That is to say, they may well be invalid claims, and there may also be no justification to call them prior or first facts!
cb25 writes:
“Your unavoidable "a priori" statements are well down the causal chain, and I fail to see how they can stand up to a posteriori examination, let alone be shown to be "unavoidable a priori facts". That is to say, they may well be invalid claims, and there may also be no justification to call them prior or first facts!”
Yes, they are contrived and superfluous a priori statements invented just for the purpose of installing GOG. While some a priori premise is unavoidable, as I have shown, they must be held to an absolute minimum. Adding superfluous ones just to create space for a GOG, is really pretty desperate.
Good work, Chris!
I would call that a checkmate against ID.
This does not mean ID cannot be ontologically correct. But violates the rules of MN, and is therefore not proper science.
Gentlemen, please give me, what you believe is an a priori. please give me two examples. Do you believe in "unavoidable a priori facts"? If so, what are some?
Sigh…..
1. There is an external world that is not simply a projection of our mind.
2. The five senses are valid means of perceiving this external world.
3. There is regularity in this external world that makes induction a valid form of logic.
It seems we have now come the full circle and are now back to where this conversation started with respect to MN. Your additional "facts" are avoidable provided that your agenda is not to install a GOG come hell or high water. Humans simply cannot know everything today, but it does not follow that what is not known today proves the existence of a GOG. There can be gaps without a GOG living in it.
ID reminds me of the Morsi supporters in Egypt. There can be a President or head of state that is not Morsi.
A Priori is "primarily a means of justifying a statement." ?? Do you think A Priori is a trick to set someone up, to suck them in to a falshood?
Or is it that you actually believe functional information is best explained by chaos theory and not mind??
" A Priori is "primarily a means of justifying a statement." ?? Do you think A Priori is a trick to set someone up, to suck them in to a falshood?"
Sigh……
Darrel, I challenge you to provide me with a truth statement that does not require a logical framework with a premise consisting of an a priori assertion in it to define that truth. There can be no such thing. Prove me wrong.
If you think the a priori's of science are trickery, then go make up your own set of a prioris and invent your own religion based on your GOG. What's stopping you?
As for me, I love what science has accomplished and want to keep exploring the world by its rules, though I realize its ontological limitations. ID is antithetical to the spirit of science and represents giving up on the gaps by proclaiming them inherently magical, because we cannot explain them today. There have always been those superstitious souls from the beginning of human history who felt the need to proclaim everything not understood in their day to be proof of the divine, whether it was lightning, impregnation, the circulation of blood, or the coming of spring. Now that same superstitious mentality ties to hide itself under the cloak of ID.
Theists need not worry that science as MN will ever disprove the existence of God. God may either work through natural means, or be beyond the reach of sense perception. Either way, MN simply cannot address such possibilities one way or the other.
There is an external world that is not simply a projection of our mind. How can you know this is true?
"There is an external world that is not simply a projection of our mind. How can you know this is true?"
We can't know that is true by mere empirical inspection. That is why I called it an a priori premise. The same is true of the other 2 statements, although our universal experience gives us enough confidence in them that there is a nearly universal buy-in. That is why science is universally accepted method of investigation. Even religion feels a need to play this universal game so long as it can be played as MN, and no specified world view is required.
"We can't know that is true by mere empirical inspection. That is why I called it an a priori premise. The same is true of the other 2 statements, although our universal experience gives us enough confidence in them that there is a nearly universal buy-in." EXACTLY DENNIS! you get my point I hope!
Because MN’s minimalist presuppositions are universally accepted, ID’s superfluous presuppositions installing GOG must also be universally accepted??
What am I missing?? Beam me up, Elaine!
Dennis, I have explained how Intelligent Design is a positive arguement, not GOG. You are misunderstaning me Chris, I agree, "An A PRIORI statement ONLY has the right to stand IF and WHEN there is UTTERLY no way to apply an A POSTERIORI test to it." Yes, of course! What I and many others much more intelligent than I, not all Theists, have said is that the following is an A Priori statement: "Digital Code only comes from a mind." There is no need to apply an A Posteriori test to it. I find it amazing when some do not agree with this. At least this. This is a basis for 'positive evidence' regarding ID of some kind. It is certainly not based on a 'gap' in knowledge; it is based on what we know based in information theory.
“Dennis, I have explained how Intelligent Design is a positive arguement, not GOG.”
Yes, you have attempted to explain it, but I can’t see it as more than desperate speculation based on convenient definitions (information theory). (And I am not alone it this of course; almost all the highest regarded scientists agree with me, including the Christian ones) It is not your factual data that is positive, but your (ID’s) highly biased interpretation that is imposed on the sensory data.
You deny that your digital code stuff is a “gap” but calling it proof of mind is only another way to call it magic, and magic is a gap in human understanding. If I substitute “digital code” with “watch,” then the argument is identical to the Paley argument, which Paley argued was proof of intelligent design. Going digital doesn’t change anything in principle. Paley would also have been amazed that anyone would disagree with him also. Going back in human history, the priests were always amazed when the village skeptics denied the supernatural basis of the phenomena they offered as proof of the divine.
Dennis, I am interested, on what basis do you believe in God? I would be helpful to understand that.
Sorry. "It would be helpful to understand that."
“Dennis, I am interested, on what basis do you believe in God? It would be helpful to understand that."
Perhaps it would have been helpful to rephrase that question to: “What kind of a God do you believe in?”
My answer is as follows: I can only accept a God that does not require humans to believe in Him/her (assuming God to have a gender) without sufficient a posteriori public evidence.
Such a God is described by Michael Dowd in Thank God for Evolution. Dowd, a former evangelical evangelist turned evolution theory promoter, defines God as “Ultimate Reality,” that can neither be believed nor disbelieved; God just is. Ultimate commitment to anything less constitutes idolatry. (I have written a review of that book)
I believe there is an ultimate reality, though I don’t know what exactly that entails. Therefore, by the magic of definition, my belief in ultimate reality necessarily entails a believe in such a God, and I am not an idolater. 🙂
Thank you
Darrel, Darrel,,
Good morning to you. I have just woken to see you have totally mixed up my words by INSERTING a priori in place of a posteriori. I will underline it so you can see it:
"A Priori is "primarily a means of justifying a statement." ?? Do you think A Priori is a trick to set someone up, to suck them in to a falshood? …'
Do you not read and consider what I say? This is what I said:
"A posteriori is,… primarily a means of justifying a statement. …."
Spot the difference?!!! A posteriori NOT a priori.
Dennis is absolutely correct in the three examples of an a priori statement and following points he makes.
An A PRIORI statement ONLY has the right to stand IF and WHEN there is UTTERLY no way to apply an A POSTERIORI test to it.
OR, when it has thus been tested and stood the TEST!
Darrel, the point is that your claims, which you declare to be "unavoidable a priori's", MUST, undergo a posteriori test. Dennis gives examples of a priori claims or "unavoidable's" where this cannot be done. You agree with him, and get all excited, but Your claims are NOT such claims!! So you can and must allow them to be tested a posteriori.
DO IT!
btw. do you know why a priori is, or at least should be, italicised? It is Latin. Frustrates me when people consistently ignore this fact.
Amuses me when more than one educated person here slams me because they think I don't understand the concepts, but they don't even know, or is it care, that it should be italicised!:)
Darrel (and his kind) seems intellectually (genetically?) incapable of grasping the difference between minimalist a priori set of assertions that most people accept (MN), and ones that swallow the whole GOG enchilada hook line and sinker (ID), that causes most people to gag, except for certain pre-committed ideological theists. This lack of discrimination results in one false equation after the other.
Yes, I got your quote backwards. Sorry Chris!
I respect that admission. But what does it say about your carefulness as an apologist if you can get things backwards and not notice? This is not the first time.
People make mistakes Dennis.
Perhaps swallowing ID hook, line, and sinker was an even bigger antecedent mistake?
Darrel,
You appear to be over your head when discussing with Chris. Not understanding the meaning of a priori is a perfect example. You also do not accept what Dennis has written. It's best to quit when you're up against the experts.
Desperate times calls for desperate arguments.
Touching a nerve I see!
One example from comments earlier, of others who are non-theists seeing the positive evidence for Design are Dr. Vladimir I. shCherbak, a mathematician at the al-Farabi Kazakh National University of Kazakhstan, and Maxim A. Makukov, an astrobiologist at Kazakhstan's's Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute. They wrote a paper: "The 'Wow! signal' of the terrestrial genetic code." Their paper was accepted for publication in the prestigious planetary science journal Icarus. You can find it on-line.
Their title comes from a SETI signal back in the 70s that looked so artificial a researcher wrote "Wow!" next to it. It was a mistake, but the a priori assumption of SETI is the same as for ID.
shCherbak and Makukov looked into "biological SETI" — the "biological channel" of communication (DNA) and concluded "Wow!" –the genetic code has features that speak strongly of unnatural origin.
The abstract states: “”It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like "signal" in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario.
If we cannot even establish with certainty that there is an external world, then of course all kinds of weird things are possible. So what? That does not make ID scientific because it breaks the rules of science as MN.
Mercy mercy, have a heart fellows. Your insistence in browbeating is a shame. Your abstractions of truth to you can be bewildering to others. Also some of us do not share your methods or beliefs in determining the ultimate equation of truth of reality. i don't have to utilize the formulas of a priori or a posteriori to gain my concept of reality of ID, of its utilization outside of Earth, or on Earth, as you and most all others use it in invention of new ideas, machines, or systems daily.
This is the same game that we use to play in the military. To assume command, the question was, what's the date of your commission??
"If we cannot even establish with certainty that there is an external world . . ." Why do you say this Dennis and how is it related to the above on the DNA Code?
The existence of the DNA code necessarily presupposes the existence of an external world. So if there is no external world, then there is no DNA, period, let alone a DNA code, because DNA is a subset of the external world. Isn't that obvious??
A second point that you seem which you seem oblivious is that a prioris need to be kept to an absolute minimum. For example,do we also want to specify a priori how many angels can dance on a pin head so long as we are busy postulating necessary a prioris?
We do absolutely need to have an external world to do any science. We don't need any angels dancing on the heads of pins a priori, and we don't need digital code a priori. So those things need to be established a posteriori.
Sorry:
"A second point to which you seem oblivious…"
Claire O'Connell, reports in New Scientist, about whatlife isfrom the perspective of a genetic engineer whose team programmed DNA in a computer in the first attempt to build a synthetic organism? Pioneering synthetic geneticist Craig Venter told the packed audience in Dublin that life is DNA-software-driven machinery that operates protein robots.Here's the key passage in the article:
"All living cells that we know of on this planet are 'DNA software'-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions," said Venter. "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."
That's a remarkable statement. It has intelligent design written all through it.
O'Connell describes how Schrödinger realized 69 years ago that a living cell had to carry information. Without knowing the structure of DNA, he envisioned it as an "aperiodic crystal" that could store instructions. She quotes Luke O'Neill, a professor of biochemistry at Trinity and master of ceremonies for the July 12 lecture:
"The gene had to be stable, so it had to be a crystal, and it had to have information so it was aperiodic," he explained.
"Equally important, Schrödinger also discussed the possibility of a genetic code, stating the concept in clear physical terms."
The rest, as they say, is history: DNA did turn out to be aperiodic, stable, and the bearer of a genetic code.
It's serendipitous that the history of molecular genetics parallels the history of software engineering. Just when Schrödinger was pondering how cells might store information in a genetic code, software engineers were figuring out how to program the new computers being invented, first the clunky vacuum-tube monstrosities, followed by devices with increasing power and decreasing size as transistors (1947) and integrated circuits (1958) became available.
Software engineers faced the challenges of informational systems: How can instructions be stored and executed to command robotic devices like input-output machines and printers?
How can software respond and adapt robustly to changing environments? How can hardware and software be integrated into systems and networks? Simultaneously but independently, geneticists were learning how the newly discovered DNA code stored instructions and executed them, solving the very same challenges. The timing of these discoveries was as uncanny as the similarities between them.
“DNA is not just like software,” he said, “that's what it is.” To prove the point, he added, "We are now using computer software to design new DNA software."
O'Connell continues,
“The digital and biological worlds are becoming interchangeable, he added, describing how scientists now simply send each other the information to make DIY biological material rather than sending the material itself.”
“Our uniform experience with software is that it is intelligently designed.
Software runs on machines, and machines are intelligently designed.
Software operates other machines (e.g., robots) that are also intelligently designed.
Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex.
Functional systems imply purposefully planned architecture of the whole.
Software is comprised of information, which is immaterial.
Information is independent of the storage medium bearing it (e.g., electrons, magnets, silicon chips, molecules of DNA).
Meaningful information is aperiodic; so is DNA.
As a form of information, DNA software is complex and specified.
Epigenetics regulates genetics just as computer software can regulate other software.
Software can improve over time, but only by intelligent design, not by random mutation.
Software can contain bugs and still be intelligently designed.”
Today's answer to "What is life?" therefore, is: “ it'ssoftware.” That's an Intelligent Design idea.
I am not a software engineer, so I am not going to get into the technicalities here. But I am extremely wary of all these loose equations that are being thrown around. I heard Meyer making the same absolute equations. Everyone I know who makes such absolute statements are carnival barkers or apologists of some kind, so I will assume the same until proven wrong in this case.
But if it is so clear, then let them prove their case a posteriori. That would be science proper. Why then the special pleading that it must be snuck in as an a priori on a par with "There is an external world? There is something rotten in Denmark.
Maybe this is part of the problem Dennis, not knowing much about information systems. We know that programmers applied their purposeful minds to writing code. In the case of bacteria, while we cannot observe the designer of their codes at work, we can infer design from the function of multiple interdependaant parts
Sergei Maslov, a researcher at Brookhaven National Laboratory, holds appointments in physics and quantitative biology. His grad student, Tin Yau Pang, assisted with the mathematical model of backward engeneering the operating systems of bacteria. Their idea was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Maslov and Tin proceeded to describe intelligent design in their own words:
"It is almost expected that the frequency of usage of any component is correlated with how many other components depend on it," said Maslov. "But we found that we can determine the number of crucial components — those without which other components couldn't function — by a simple calculation that holds true both in biological systems and computer systems."
What they really found, then, was a large number of essential components in both codes, without which either would be "dead on arrival." These are "key components that are so important that not a single other piece can get by without them”
The paper’s abstract: “Bacterial genomes and large-scale computer software projects both consist of a large number of components (genes or software packages) connected via a network of mutual dependencies. Components can be easily added or removed from individual systems, and their use frequencies vary over many orders of magnitude. We study this frequency distribution in genomes of ∼500 bacterial species and in over 2 million Linux computers and find that in both cases it is described by the same scale-free power-law distribution with an additional peak near the tail of the distribution corresponding to nearly universal components. We argue that the existence of a power law distribution of frequencies of components is a general property of any modular system with a multilayered dependency network. We demonstrate that the frequency of a component is positively correlated with its dependency degree given by the total number of upstream components whose operation directly or indirectly depends on the selected component. The observed frequency/dependency degree distributions are reproduced in a simple mathematically tractable model introduced and analyzed in this study.”
Computer Code (biological or metallic) is really Language; this is a priori, I would think!
Despite all the discussion up to this point, you still show no evidence that you even understand the issue of a priori versus a posteriori statementsa. Your last sentence is a non-sequitur.
Nobody doubts that ideologues of every ilk can put up tons and tons of statements online justifying their particular pet ideas using their own jargon, so that does not impress me one bit. I could throw up 100 pages of anti-ID argument on this thread. Would that make my argument stronger?
Your before & after posture of MN is a figment of the evolutionist mentality, of why you believe science is GOD. You believe it trumps all the data that Darrel is providing. You arrogantly dismiss it by saying "I am extremely wary of all these loose equations that are being thrown around". You refuse to recognise there is and are other worlds out there. Hubble gives me undeniable proof. You are tenuously hanging onto a false science. Your equation is based on a biased supposition.
Earl, you have just admitted you don’t really understand much of this discussion, and I think that would apply even more to this latest post on computer programming. So apparently it is all gobblygook to you. How do you then put yourself in a position to be the judge of what is proof, and what is gobblygook? Your post contains so many conceptual errors in it that you are only hurting Darrel’s case by endorsing his side. I am perfectly to practice what you think is false science.
I could post pages and pages of counter arguments on the internet from one evolutionist or another debunking ID. If I post twice as many pages as Darrel, does that make my argument twice as strong? Darrel has shown in the past that he posts internet material he doesn’t even understand correctly, so long as he thinks it is convenient for his position.
Sorry:
"I am perfectly happy to practice what you think is false science."
The rule of holes: "When you're deep in a hole, stop digging."
A new scientific volume, Biological Information: New Perspectives, finally now published by World Scientific Publishing. This Publisher has just released the proceedings of a symposium held in the spring of 2011 at Cornell University to critically re-examine neo-Darwinian theory.
This symposium brought together experts in information theory, computer science, numerical simulation, thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, whole organism biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, genetics, physics, biophysics, mathematics, and linguistics.
The volume Biological Information: New Perspectives is an interdisciplinary volume, comprising papers presented at Cornell conference. The papers are divided into four main sections. The first is on information theory and biology, and was edited by Robert J. Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. The second, on biological information and genetic theory, was edited by John C. Sanford, Courtesy Professor in the Department of Horticulture at Cornell, and notoriously the primary inventor of the gene gun. Sanford hosted the conference; were it not for his efforts and contributions, the conference probably would not have taken place, and the volume wouldn't have been published. The third section is on theoretical molecular biology, edited by Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University.
The final section, on biological information and self-organizational complexity theory, was edited by Bruce L. Gordon, Associate Professor in History and Philosophy of Science at Houston Baptist University. The book contains contributions from some prominent proponents of intelligent design, such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, and others.
However, while some of the papers do expressly advocate intelligent design, it isn't entirely, or even mostly, about ID. In fact some of the contributors are explicitly anti-ID.
For example, the fourth main section of the book, "Biological Information and Self-Organizational Complexity Theory," contains contributions by scientists who are critical of Darwinism but believe the solution to the problem of origins is a materialistic form of evolution along the lines of self-organization along the lines of brother Dennis here.
In the introduction to that section, editor Bruce Gordon explains the difference between ID and self-organization: Both self-organizational theorists and intelligent design (ID) theorists believe that natural selection operating on random genetic mutation is an insufficient basis on which to explain the origins of biological complexity and irrelevant to the origin of life. ID theorists also believe that the self-organizational capacities of physical systems are limited, falling far short of the order we observe, so the ultimate source of information for the origin of life and hierarchically integrated morphogenesis in both organismal development and speciation must be extrinsic to biological systems and their physical environments. In contrast, self-organizational researchers argue that global pattern development, including the highly complex hierarchical information structures characteristic of life, can emerge solely from the interactions of lower-level components and part-whole dynamics without ultimate or proximate goal-directed input.
Whether biological information is somehow self-originating is thus a central point of disagreement between intelligent design theorists and self-organizational complexity theorists. There are also some scientists who contributed to the volume who would probably reject both the "ID movement" label, as well as materialistic accounts of life's origins.
Noone is promoting creationism in the book — the book is scientific in its content, and about critiquing neo-Darwinism.
That some contributors are creationists, however, doesn't make ID the equivalent of creationism any more than it makes self-organization the equivalent of creationism. So what's the book about? It's a critical analysis of the ability of standard evolutionary models, particularly neo-Darwinism, to explain the origin of biological information. It is written from a variety or perspectives, including ones that are friendly and others that are hostile to ID. What all the contributors have in common are (a) credible academic backgrounds, and (b) scientific and scholarly views, often grounded in original research and argument, that (c) neo-Darwinian theory cannot explain how biological information arises. The good news for those who want to read the chapter contributions to the book is that the entire book is open access and available online for free. One final note in this introduction: There has been some speculation that World Scientific is a vanity publishing house. That is false. It's a respected academic and scientific publishing house based in Singapore that publishes many other respectable scientific publications, including over 150 scientific journals, literally thousands of academic books, and many scientific textbooks. Because the book challenges neo-Darwinism, no doubt World Scientific will be harshly attacked simply for publishing Biological Information: New Perspectives. That is all the more reason the publisher should be commended for supporting the academic freedom of scientists to disseminate research that challenges mainstream theory. You see, originally Biological Information: New Perspectives was set to be published by Springer, but Springer illegally violated the book's publication contract by cancelling it late last year under pressure from Darwin lobbyists. Every sad!
I will support World Scientific for not caving into the censors by buying a copy this research. Those interested in this topic of recent discussion here, please buy a copy as well no matter which side you are on.
Darrel,
You have made a strong case suggesting nature got there first! Cool.
Your underlying a priori assumption seems to be that we all possess intelligence. Interestingly, this is an assertion about how we are now, which is then read back into data.
You have elaborated on what is essentially one a posteriori string of evidence for your a priori assertion about a present state of being: Design.
Have you considered that "design" as an a posteriori evidence, is one which may, can, or even does, fit better when applied to other a priori assumptions? There is a very strong risk you are reading back into nature, not from nature (observable reality, if you like). There is also much other a prosteriori evidence to suggest that your imposing back onto nature of this "interpretation" of the data is a misfit.
The very serious question you MUST ask yourself is this: "Is there some OTHER a priori position I hold which is causing me to focus on one string of evidence and to force everything else to "fit" around that?"
If I were to answer that for you, I would say "Yes!" Theism.
Darrel, an honestly, and humbly held a priori will ALWAYS be held ransom to the widest possible a posteriori testing.
You have taken an a priori assertion about how we ARE, and read it backwards into nature. It would seem to me, not to support your a priori that we have intelligence, but that Theism is correct. Theism IS an apriori, and must be held ransom to a posteriori scrutiny, just like any other a priori assertion or theory.
I could take the a priori position that Angels do in fact dance on pinheads, I can find a posteriori evidence for it too: People dance on tables, don't they? Monks sit on poles, don't they? Of course, to be so silly, I would have to ignore other vastly more contextual and compelling strings of evidence and refuse to hold my sacred cow (a priori view) ransom to it!
btw, there are several flaws in your logic above, but I'm not sure needs elaborating..
Chris, I disagree with your analysis and logic. For example, "I could take the a priori position that Angels do in dance on pinheads." Actually you cannot. This is light years from being self evident symantically or logically
Actually, Darrel, stop and consider a moment: Where is it self evident symantically and logically that God exists? (the end aim of ID for you)
You have to read back in to data and claim something greater than yourself (an intelligent self, self aclaimed thus!) to prove a greater "self". You have first used your own "self" as the evidence and proof for your symantics and logic.
So, yes I can, if you can. My point is you cannot either, because your claim that God exists is no more self evident and verifiable than my angel dancers, which I borrowed from Dennis!
“God created it that way” is the explanation of every observation of nature for the person who accepted it by faith. But it does not meet the criteria of falsification since any observation outcome fits the statement. Hence it is considered unscientific. Actually it is outside the realm of SCIENCE.
Evolution on the other hand is considered science. However, many conclusions, extrapolation of observations of nature attributed to Evolution are equally un-falsifiable. Take the example of dating Neanderthals I used. Any outcome is considered fitting Evolution. Hence many conclusions of Evolution are equally unscientific. Actually they are outside the realm of SCIENCE.
Things that are not science do not mean they are not good. But to consider something scientific that actually are not certainly cannot be good.
Phillip, although I love the test of falsifiability, it is simply not logically possible to create any test of truth without the use of any a prioris, or “premises” which are functionally unfalsifiable, as I have already demonstrated several times in this thread. Carl Popper tried to create a system that could get around this problem, but failed to do so as I have previously argued. So science itself as MN contains 4 minimalist premises which must be accepted on an a priori basis, but they are disclosed.
Please show me where evolutionary theory requires unfalsifiable premises beyond these four that MN publicly discloses. I know nothing about the Neanderthal dating to which you refer.
I'd like to ask Philip why, in this sentence he used the word "many", and not "all".
"..However, many conclusions, extrapolation of observations of nature attributed to Evolution are equally un-falsifiable." Bold and _ added.
Then, I'd like to know how he can justify using the word "equally" un-falsifiable to imply that this then puts both approaches on a level with each other. It does not.
Many is not all, and the implication is that there are some conclusions about nature attributed to evolution which are falsifiable! If they are falsifiable, but have not (yet) been falsified, but rather have been verifed, they represent powerfull a posteriori evidence that the general theory has a good case.
Philip is right, nothing about faith cliams can be falsified. That's why I prefer to stick with theories that at least have some (I would say many) claims that are falsifiable, as with the theory of evolutionary processes.
Re Neanderthal dating. Was that a reference to this?:
Evolution was the best explanation.
Evolution later found Neanderthal to be genetically intermixed with Homo sapiens.
Evolution was still the best explanation.
Evolution finally found Neanderthal predated Homo sapiens.
Evolution is still the best scientific explanation today.
The logic is obvious. It will always be the best explanation." (Philip Law)
This progression of theories about sequence is actually an example of falsification! How can one say that the fine tuning of a sequence, relationship or dating, which took place in the light of further evidence is an example of "un-falsifiablity"? Is it not the opposite!? Is not this MN at work?
This is how it should read imho:
MN found Neanderthal intermingled with Homo sapiens.
MN gave its best explanation.
MN later found Neanderthal to be genetically intermixed with Homo sapiens.
MN accepted the best explanation.
MN finally found Neanderthal predated Homo sapiens.
MN accepted the explanation,
MN theories can be falsified by better evidence
MN building a stronger case as data grows…
The logic is obvious. It will always accept the best explanation… even if it means changing position.
Powerful theories are built on the steps of falsification and its twin, verification, and every forward step they take, faith is forced to deny ever more…
Only in Evoltuion 'science' do a sequence of inconsistent results considered progress. In other sciences it is called experimentl failures. There lies the basis of infalsiability of Evolution.
“Only in Evoltuion 'science' do a sequence of inconsistent results considered progress.”
In the professional literature, every experiment is torn apart in peer review that is tougher and more merciless than this blog. Every subsequent experimenter reads all the criticism directed at the previous research and then designs the next experiment to avoid making the same mistakes. Any researcher who is stupid enough to repeat the same study without taking into consideration previous criticisms would be mercilessly torn apart and mocked. So the idiots and their theories do not survive. Because of this harsh peer review, there is progress in that falsified theories are scorned into oblivion.
“In other sciences it is called experimentl failures.”
Evolutionary theory has to work with fewer data points than other branches, such as classic physics, or chemistry. Fewer data points means more extrapolation is necessary and therefore more potential error. But that does not mean the reasoning is less scientific.
“There lies the basis of infalsiability of Evolution.”
One of the presuppositions of science is that there is “continuity in nature.” This presupposition, which cannot be proven, is necessary to make inductive logic valid. Without this presupposition, experiments would be pointless, because a generalization about how nature consistently acts could not be made on the basis of an experiment.
But what some people do not seem to realize is that this presupposition of continuity in nature also implies gradual evolution, as opposed to sudden discontinuities, such as would be the case if a bug gave birth to an elephant, or a giraffe suddenly (miraculously) pops into existence from thin air. The notion of continuity in nature was already used in the other “hard” sciences such as physics and chemistry before Darwin’s Origin of the Species. But Darwin’s genius was that he extended this idea of continuity into biology.
Until science abandons the premise of continuity, and thus gives up on experimental science, then gradual biological evolution will be implied and so will not be abandoned. But what will science be if it gives up on the idea that experiments are a valid tool to learn something about the way the world works?
You seem to accept experimental science, so you accept the principle of continuity. If you accept that principle then you must also accept the idea of biological evolution, unless you are going to presuppose that there is continuity in everything except living things which suddenly appeared in a magical poof about 6-10 thousand years ago. Is that the stance you are taking and recommending for scientists as well??
"principle of continuity" — What is that? Where can one learn about that principle? What branch of science teaches that? I don't even recall that term in calculus.
Phillip, you obviously have not read much of this thread, and are a quite a newbe to the subject of science and the philosophy of science. The requirement that there be “continuity” or “regularity” in the universe is not about calculus (mathematics), but a prerequisite assumption in order for inductive logic to be valid. Without this regularity, experiments would be meaningless, because science makes generalizations from these experiments about the way the world works, and calls such generalizations “scientific knowledge.” It is also a problem because there is no way that we can be sure the world is really regular, and so it must be assumed without complete knowledge that it is true.
I began posting about this subject on this thread about 20 days ago, and you can look back to read about this. Millions of pages have no doubt been written about this fundamental problem in science and can be found online. Look up subjects like, regularity in nature, continuity in nature, inductive logic, the problem of induction, Carl Popper, Baconian induction, methodological naturalism, hypothetico-deductive method, etc, and you the rest of your life will not be enough time to read all the material you will get. If this is all hogwash, then there is no science at all, because “scientific experiments” are meaningless exercises that are no more reliable than a witch doctor tossing chicken bones in the air.
In the meantime, I will re-post just an excerpt from a previous post 20 days ago that deals specifically with the principle of continuity in the universe. There are 4 assumptions required in MN, and this is just one:
“3. Assume that the phenomenological universe possesses the character of continuity, or consistency such that a representative sample of it gives us a valid basis of projecting the nature of the universe of data from which that sample was taken.
(Although this may be objectionable from a theists perspective, because it disallows “miracles” and divine intervention which are “discontinuities,” the NM reply is that this rule is strictly methodological for the benefit of a research program, without any necessary ontological implications. Historically, many natural phenomena that initially seemed miraculous (discontinuous) turned out to have underlying mechanical explanations. Therefore, it would be methodologically foolish to give up on “discontinuities” so long as humans are fallible, since that would stop investigation.
Finally, the objection that Carl Popper has found a way for science to avoid using inductive logic, is essentially false. That is because his hypothetico-deductive (HD) system amounts to consequentialism, which is merely a substitution of back-loading for a front loading of the inductive assumption. Also, there can be no consistent predictions by any hypothesis in HD unless there is consistency or regularity in the universe. So HD has smuggled in induction via the back door.)”
In an auditorium at Caltech I listened with amusement when Richard Feynman lamented, “Much philosophy is just bad physics.” A little extension of that amusing comment to science in general has helped to avoid a lot of scientific hog wash through the years.
As an example a wave through two different media maintains continuity at the interface as a boundary condition. There must be other instances in science that such continuity is imposed by physical reality. To elevate such to ‘principle of continuity’ and apply it to gradual developments of a particular discipline with the inability to differentiate between experimental errors and progress shows the futility of hog wash.
OK, Phillip. Have it your way. If the principle of continuity is hogwash, then there is no basis for doing any experiments at all. For there can be no assumption that the small sample observed has any consistent relationship to universe from which that sample was taken unless the principle of continuity is assumed. Chuck science and go back to bibliomancy, witchcraft, or whatever.
“Much philosophy is just bad physics.” I would agree with that. But your extension of that into science on your own authority and applying that specifically to the concept of regularity in scientific methodology is utterly meaningless speculation. Why not extend that into Jewish Kabbalah or Tasmanian Devil worship while you are at it?
P.S. What is science without the “hogwash” supposition that there is consistency in the universe?
Darrel, as I said previously, you still don't seem to understand a priori and a posteriori statements, and your previous assertion to Chris ("Actually you can't") only makes that more evident. If you can’t understand this fundamental point of logic, then you cannot intelligently carry on this conversation, as is becoming evident. If I don't wish to abide by MN, then I can posit any dang a priori I wish, including specifying how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let me prove it.
“Only 1,000 angels are allowed to simultaneously dance on the head of a pin. If there are only 8 pins in the universe, and there are only 10,000,000 angels available to dance, then how many angels may be dancing on the head of pins at any one time?”
Answer: 8 x 1,000 = 8,000.
There are 3 a priori statements in that paragraph, and no a posteriori. Therefore there is no need to do any observations to determine the answer to the problem. The specification of the maximum number of angels that can simultaneously dance on the head of a pin, the number of pins available for those angels to dance on, and the total number of angels available to dance, are all necessary to know, provided that my apologetic interest is to know the total number of angels simultaneously dancing on pins in the universe.
Now, you may ask, why would I have such a silly apologetic interest. I could respond defensively, and say, “Don’t you dare mock my religion! I belong to the 8,000 Dancing Angels Church, and our sacred writings say this is true. We believe it. That settles it!”
Now, your apologetic interest is slightly different: You don’t care about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but you absolutely demand to have a creator God who thoughtfully manipulated DNA structure, which is arguably more difficult than dancing on the head of a pin. So you begin with an a priori statement that demands god-like intelligence in DNA coding.
From the perspective of MN, both of these sets of a prioris violate the law of parsimony due to apologetic interests. One demands the existence of thousands of supernatural dancing angels, and the other demands the existence of a supernatural entity that makes DNA dance.
As to your statement that the dancing angels are significantly less likely to command universal assent than divine intelligence, I will certainly assent to that, but I do that intentionally to demonstrate the principle that both sets of a prioris are the result of special entity pleadings that violate the rules of MN. A violation is a violation, whether it be dancing angels or godlike intelligence manipulating DNA, and the degree to which it can be sold in market place is not the point.
Oh my, Dennis you do't teach philosophy do you?
Oh my, Dennis you do't teach philosophy do you?
If science is your god, good for you, i'm glad for you that you are content. Your evolutionist atheistic view is your religion. By observing with my own eyes and logic i recognize existing intelligence designing outside of Earth, and on Earth. Something is born of nothing. Mathematics, thermo-dynamics, elements, DNA, ability for humans to devise, design, develop, interpret & read coding, interrupt and hack others intellectual property is intelligence in action. The belief that the infinite ingredients of life forms in infinitely just the precise elements & quantities to synergistically form the specimen of its creator, is impossible with out the intelligent pattern.
You are welcome to create your own yeas & nays, rules & regulations, your a priori's, post apriori's, law of parsimony, or any other intelligent designed laws that work for you.
All is not an illusion?? There are other worlds & intelligence out there. i submit that intelligent design is the reason Earth is real, mankind is real, we have life and all of its intelligent faculties. We have a inherent moral concept of love. We are a reality. What created all that we are able to observe, we don't know, but we aren't
denying it doesn't exist. Now you can attempt to ridicule, belittle, arrogantly throw your hands in the air in exasperation at our denseness, but we aren't buying it.
Earl, yesterday was the first Sabbath that my SS class began studying the book, The Creationists, Ron Numbers’ history of the creationism that arose in response to Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Erv presented a paper on chapter 1, which was excellent, btw.
During the lively discussion period that followed, another occasional blogger (X) on this particular thread, made a fiery speech whose sentiment was virtually the same as yours. I thought it was ironic that our class discussion witnessed the same diatribe as this thread on the same day. 🙂 It reminded me of the book of Hebrews where it is asserted that what happens on earth is only a type of what happens in a higher (cyberspace?) realm. (After class, X and I had an amiable discussion.)
What you and X have in common is a total inability to separate ontology from methodology. For you, methodology IS ontology. When you can’t make that distinction, then of course you cannot discuss science methodologically; that is, conceive of science as an international game with universally adopted set of rules to follow, and referees or umpires to officiate, like baseball, or basketball. This game of MN confines itself to the material (or natural) world, in the same way that basketball confines itself to what happens between the lines of a 50 x 94 feet basketball court, or a baseball game confines itself to what happens on a baseball field between the foul lines and the defined surroundings.
Because you cannot accept that there are international rules, when you are losing, you demand 4 or five strikes, or as many strikes a you need to get a hit when you are at bat. Then you get upset at those who deny you those extra strikes, so you cuss out the rules of the game, and those who wish to enforce them, then threaten to “take your ball and go home.”
Nobody here (so far as I can tell) is denying that your subjective opinion about ultimate reality (ontology) may theoretically be entirely correct, and the rest of the world completely wrong (except for those who entirely agree with you) and terribly deluded. You are the undisputed POPE of your own beliefs, and you may derive them any way you wish, without having to defer to anybody else’s rules or a prioris.
However, to the extent that you are commenting on the international game of science (MN), then unfortunately, you don’t get to be the final arbiter or make up your own rules so that your supernaturalist ideology can triumph in a game designed to explore the natural world. Neither do I. The methodological rules of science are beyond yours or my authority, but nobody is held hostage and forced to play this game against their will. You are welcome to play a different game that feels more emotionally or spiritually gratifying, a game where you and your pet beliefs always get to be on the “winning side.”
Personally, though, I hope that both you and X stick around and add in your comments, whatever they are. I don’t take them personally, and I hope you don’t take my comments that way either. But so long as you are commenting on MN, I will make no apologies for wanting to keep methodological naturalism natural.
Dennis, i bear no malice toward you nor of all others at bloggersphere at atoday. my offerings aren't meant to win a debate here. i would not derive pleasure at proving another's argument as being of lesser value. i have no bias re: MN as it relates to your rules of the posteraori observation of scientific realities present on Earth, or even outside our athmosphere, and said earlier you have every right to appreciate that think, and sincerely wish you contentment. you will never find me "fiery" or unapproachable. As you say, it is impossible for me to appreciate your MN extrapolation process as possibly the answer to the origens of life forms. i believe there are intelligent patterns for every positive construct, assuming "intelligent" as pure, unsullied, of good report. my regards to you & Chris.
Can you appreciate that methodological naturalism needs to be kept natural, lest it become an oxymoron? Whether or not MN can explain the origin of life is enitrely beside the point, as we happily play many games, such as baseball, chess, business, marriage, etc, without ncessarily needing to demand that they explain the origin of life.
Does "supernatural naturalism" work for you?
Whether or not MN can explain the origin of life is enitrely beside the point, as we happily play many games, such as baseball, chess, business, marriage, etc, without ncessarily needing to demand that they explain the origin of life.
are you being commical Dennis?
Aha, so you are also caught up the same "methodology is ontology" mental block in which Earl and X are completely mired?! I am actually dead serious. As I posted previously,
“According to Ronald Numbers, it (MN) was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a (Christian) Wheaton College philosopher. De Vries distinguished between what he called ‘methodological naturalism,’ a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and ‘metaphysical naturalism,’ which ‘denies the existence of a transcendent God.’ The Creationists, p. 377.”
If you actually understood those words, then you would have understood that MN need have nothing to do with the ontological adequacy of naturalism as a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life. It (MN) was conceived by de Vries, a conservative Christian philosopher, as being merely an exploration of the NATURAL realm of the universe, as can be deduced from public evidence. If origins can only be explained by invoking the supernatural, then that is beyond the scope of MN, in arguably the same way that cancer is beyond the scope of what a GP physician can manage. If the problem is beyond what even a world class oncologist can handle, then the priest may be called in to administer last rites.
I would love to hear how you, Earl, or X would condemn de Vries for articulation of MN as being distinct from ontological, or metaphysical naturalism. Would it be:
“You terrible Christian traitor! How dare you separate nature from divine actions in the world?!! Don’t you know that nature is God and God is nature?!!”
If not that, then what?? I would love to hear it!
Dennis, of course MN is important we're logic dictates, but to make absolute MN a god to epistemology certainly makes ontogeny bow to it as an idol.
Darwin maintained that evolution has no direction. . . . , Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, pp. 12-13 (W.W. Norton & Co. 1977).
Cornell University evolutionary biologist William Provine has similarly stated that “belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people” William B. Provine, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, pgs. 117, 126
3 (Margaret W. Rossiter ed., University of Chicago Press 1999).
Dr. Provine says that there are severe philosophical implications of Darwinian biology:
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. WilliamProvine, Abstract, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life,” Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration University of Tennessee, Knoxville Feb. 12, 1998.
so, yes, ontogeny is effected big time
“Dennis, of course MN is important we're logic dictates, but to make absolute MN a god to epistemology certainly makes ontogeny bow to it as an idol.”
Ontogeny?? (“development of individual to maturity: the development of an individual from a fertilized ovum to maturity”) Darrel, what in the name of heaven are you talking about?! I haven’t said a word about ontogeny, and that word or what it represents never even entered my mind! I wish you were trying to be comical, but sadly, it appears you are serious. Making “absolute MN a god to epistemology”?? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please quote my sentence that gave you this wacky idea.
"Darwin maintained that evolution has no direction. . . . , Darwin applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature. Matter is the ground of all existence; mind, spirit, and God as well, are just words that express the wondrous results of neuronal complexity. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, pp. 12-13 (W.W. Norton & Co. 1977).
So what?! We are talking about Paul de Vries METHODOLOGICAL reinterpretation of science as MN!! I never claimed that Darwin promoted science as MN, did I?? Aren’t you even reading what I write? Darrel, if this is to be a meaningful dialogue at all, you should at least address what I have actually written, instead of fantasizing about what I have NOT written. This is no longer about “making mistakes.” This is about being delusional.
"Cornell University evolutionary biologist William Provine has similarly stated that 'belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.'”
Is this supposed to be documentation of your thesis? Now tell me: Did Provine have MN in mind when he used the phrase, “modern evolution”? No, he did not! I did not read that book, but that phrase conventionally is understood to mean atheistic ontology (and your next quote proves it). That is precisely why the phrase methodological naturalism is critical to use in conjunction with science and evolutionary theory. The fact that you are still oblivious to this after all these pages of supposed “dialogue” is an indictment of your reading comprehension.
"Dr. Provine says that there are severe philosophical implications of Darwinian biology:
'Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.'”
How clear could I have made it that MN specifically denies all of the above ontological (NOT ONTOGENIC!!!!) implications? Did I not post the following more than once:
“According to Ronald Numbers, it (MN) was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a (Christian) Wheaton College philosopher. De Vries distinguished between what he called ‘methodological naturalism,’ a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and ‘metaphysical naturalism,’ which ‘denies the existence of a transcendent God.’ The Creationists, p. 377.”
Your attempt to provide documentation for your position is a joke because you apparently can’t even understand the material you are posting or reading!
“so, yes, ontogeny is effected big time”
"Effected"? I give up. How exactly does a proper understanding of MN affect “the development of an individual from a fertilized ovum to maturity” big time? Your entire response is one non-sequitur after another. Why not at least try to base at least some of your responses on what I actually wrote?
What is incredibly sad and frustrating is that MN, the very antidote to atheistic ontological (not Ontogenic!!!) thinking, is being demagogued by conservatives as being the very atheistic reasoning it avoids. Christianity simply has to learn to live with science, or die. MN keeps it in its proper epistemological place, rather than letting it run amuck. Well meaning conservatives like you, Earl and X are turning Christian conservatism into a laughing stock, and a faith unworthy of thoughtful people.
I think Jack Hoehn correctly acknowledges this huge embarrassing problem and is trying to fix it with his courageous break from six day, 24 hour creationism. But he entirely blew it on this thread, and people like you, Earl, and X, though well meaning, are only digging deeper and deeper into the hole into which he fell by not comprehending the book upon which this essay is based. As Elaine wisely advised, stop digging!
"What is incredibly sad and frustrating is that MN, the very antidote to atheistic ontological (ontology, yes, I am sorry, i will be so happy when i get my compter back) is being demagogued by conservatives as being the very atheistic reasoning it avoids." Dennis could you explain thus please?
“‘What is incredibly sad and frustrating is that MN, the very antidote to atheistic ontological (ontology, yes, I am sorry, i will be so happy when i get my compter back) is being demagogued by conservatives as being the very atheistic reasoning it avoids.’ Dennis could you explain thus please?”
OK, Darrel. Let me begin by using your own recent words as great examples of the stubborn, ignorant demagoguery I have in mind:
Example 1
“‘methodological naturalism’ was and is a part of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism from the very beginning. That’s Gould’s point. "applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature," quote unquote. This is methodolical naturalism. It does not matter who invented the phrasology.”
Here you are using yourself as an authoritative commentator on what Gould meant to prove your ideological point; which is that methodology and ontology (whose meaning you apparently you cannot even understand to this day) mean exactly the same damn thing. I have read many of Gould’s books, and he is not that stupid, Darrel. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for stuffing your thoughts into his mouth and mind. You have a proven record of sloppy, ignorant, wishful thinking on this thread alone, so why should anyone trust your authority, including yourself??
The sad thing is that you are only "cutting off your nose to spite your face," because even if your contrived equation of MN with ontological atheism is right, you are only succeeding in making science incompatible with Christianity. I would call that a pyrrhic victory indeed. Fortunately for Christianity, you are utterly confused and wrong.
Finally, let us deal with your last sentence: “It does not matter who invented the phrasology.” Leave it to you to focus on a trivial detail, while the crucial point apparently flies right over your head. (This is what makes demagogues demagogues.) The whole purpose of de Vries labeling MN was to separate world view from scientific procedures, or methodology. Atheism and theism are competing world views. MN allows both sides to mutually stipulate that whatever may be the case ontologically (the way reality actually is,) they will focus only on that part of the world that is material while doing what is called science. When they are not doing science, then they can inject all the mystical, magical beliefs they may have about reality into the way they live their lives. That is the genius of MN.
Instead of making yourself your own final authority on MN, why don't you try looking up that phrase on Wikipedia and also reading chapter 17 of Ron Numbers book The Creationists as I have done.
Example 2
“Provine's ‘Naturalistic Evolution’ is also methodolical naturalism.”
Here you are again invoking your own authority to cut off your nose to spite your face. Fortunately for you, your authority is worthless, so both your nose and face are safe. That is to say, you may safely engage in science vigorously without giving up your faith, whatever that faith may be, thanks to science as MN.
But if you insist that to engage in science is to practice atheism, then you have my reluctant permission to abandon science totally. You are your own pope, after all. If the church agrees with you, then they can quit the medical work and become like the Jehovahs Witnesses whose main mission is to pass out pamphlets and give bible studies. IMO, that would be an incredibly sad day. Fortunately, I don't think that your ideology will prevail.
Dennis you say I am "using yourself as an authoritative commentator on what Gould." You are asking me not to think for myself? Are we all to accept your authority Dennis? Do we just accept your view of the non-limits of MN?
I don't think so!
Gould and Provine you do not agree with or feel they meant something else. You do not agree with Dawkins that naturalism as a method leads to naturally leads to atheism.
this is fine. I understand how MN is an attempt to avoid attributing 'bad design' to God; I understand that.
1. Dennis you say I am "using yourself as an authoritative commentator on what Gould." You are asking me not to think for myself?
It goes without saying that everybody should think for themselves, including you. Please continue to do so. But that has nothing to do with my criticism, so you are just creating a “straw man” argument. If we are to be arguing constructively, as opposed to engaging in parallel play in which we go through the motions of dialogue, but are talking completely past each other, then we must argue from within the same logical framework. The most fundamental mutual agreement we must have is that we cannot just make assertions without sufficient justifications for them. That justification will come in the form of disclosed presuppositions, and logical (deductive or inductive) implications from mutually accepted facts and presuppositions.
If we do not do this, then the argument degenerates into:
Yes, it is!
No it isn’t!!
Yes, it is!!!
No, it isn’t!!!!
When you make utter authoritative pronouncements on Gould or anybody else without justification, then you are just making a mindless “Yes, it is!” or “No it isn’t!!” assertion. You consistently misinterpret what is being said in your quotations, and draw conclusions that are non-sequiturs. I have seen this again and again in your arguments. You may think for yourself, but your record indicates that you are a sloppy, undisciplined thinker, who projects your own biases into the writings of others. Given that record, your naked opinions do not, and should not, inspire any confidence. But that doesn’t matter, because responsible dialoguers should always provide justification for their conclusions, whether or not they are considered authorities by others.
2. “Are we all to accept your authority Dennis?
Darrel, have I ever once written, “Believe this because I say so!” Show me one example of where I have done so, or admit this is just apologetic demagoguery on your part. Have I not always produced arguments to support what I claimed was correct? When I disagree with your conclusions, have I not always done so by challenging the validity of your analysis?
You are the one who merely pronounces your verdict without any rational justification for it. Show me where I do that. I am very suspicious of authority, and have always strived to justify my conclusions on the basis of public evidence interpreted scientifically.
3. Do we just accept your view of the non-limits of MN?”
I have tried to show from the beginning that this is not my personal view, but the universal rules of MN. Is not each of the 4 premises self evident as being universal rules? And what is this about the “non-limits” of MN?? If there is one thing I have emphasized, it is that MN limits itself to the universe of public evidence and the phenomenological world. That being said, we of course do not yet know what the limits of the phenomenological world are, and may never know.
Are you implying that humans of today know for sure all that can be known about the phenomenological world?? If not, then please deny it, because it certainly looks that way to me, and if you run away from this challenge again, then I will assume this to be true. You have this habit of running away from challenges in order to avoid self contradiction.
4. “Gould and Provine you do not agree with or feel they meant something else.”
Neither Gould nor Provine in the text you quote refer to MN, so of course they were talking about something else, unless you can show me that they really meant MN. It is you that keeps making unwarranted false equations of “modern evolution” with MN and then supposing that you have proved something. Pretty ridiculous circular thinking.
5. “You do not agree with Dawkins that naturalism as a method leads to naturally leads to atheism.”
Why do you keep mistaking your terminological blunders for arguments?? “Naturalism” without any qualifications normally means ontological naturalism. Ontological naturalism is atheism.
6. “I understand how MN is an attempt to avoid attributing 'bad design' to God; I understand that.”
Your “understanding” is just an irresponsible projection of yours that I think is completely off base. On what basis did you determine that Paul deVries, the conservative Christian philosopher was lying? Did you hook him up to a lie detector machine to determine this?
I think Jack is correcr Dennis, "for Dennis Hokema to have not had time to read Stephen Meyers Signature in the Cell on the ID case from cellular biology and Darwin’s Doubt on the ID case from fossils, “because there are too many books” sounds pathetic. We need to come back and talk sometime in the future after he is willing to take ID seriously, instead of accepting the propaganda that ID is just creationism in disguise."
Darrel,
I have already answered Jack below. The first thing that puzzles me is if Stephen Meyers is so great in Signature in the Cell, why did you recently write, “Dennis, I do not understand what Meyer has to do with this.” But now, it is pathetic that I haven’t read the very book that you thought had nothing to do with our discussion? Are you sure you are thinking for yourself now?
The second thing that is puzzling is that if Signature in the Cell is as great as you and Jack now think, why is it that neither of you can think of anything concerning the profound ideas in it that will whet my appetite for reading it? I could not resist doing that if I thought a book was that great. So it leads me to think you don’t really understand it personally, but are merely passing on second hand information.
Finally, you are continuing your pattern of never being able to answer any of my challenges, but evading them by changing the subject. Do I not attempt to meet every one of your challenges?
“methodological naturalism” was and is a part of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism from the very beginning. That’s Gould’s point. "applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature," quote unquote. This is methodolical naturalism. It does not matter who invented the phrasology.
1. “‘methodological naturalism’ was and is a part of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism from the very beginning. That’s Gould’s point.”
How do you know that is Gould’s point since he never uses the term MN in the text you quote?
Are you his mind reader? I have great respect for Gould so I won’t let you put your words in his mouth, or your thoughts in his mind.
2. “‘applied a consistent philosophy of materialism to his interpretation of nature,’” quote unquote.
This is methodolical naturalism.
How ridiculous! Is “philosophy” synonymous with “methodology”? No, in this context it is just the opposite, for "philosophical naturalism" is considered synonymous with "ontological naturalism." So your assertion, “This (philosophical naturalism) is methodolical naturalism ” is just as silly as dogmatically asserting that “a horse and a saw horse mean exactly the same thing!!” Sometimes adjectives qualify the noun substantially, Darrel. IOW, words mean things, so pay attention to them.
3. “It does not matter who invented the phrasology.”
I would agree that it is not of ultimate importance who invents a phrase, but whether that phrase is judged useful by those who care about the subject matter with which it deals. But in this case, the current working definition of that phrase happens to be identical to the intent of the person (Paul deVries) credited with its invention. Here is a definition that is universal:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
“Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism – the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical – essentially atheistic – claim that only natural causes exist.” (bold underlining is mine)
Is this not exactly what I have been claiming all along? So its not merely my opinion. So, let’s forget about who invented that phrase for now and just deal with the accepted definition. Are you happy now, Darrel?
Provine's "Naturalistic Evolution" is also methodolical naturalism.
If I have you correctly, Dennis, you are saying that ' this is only the method of investigation, this method is not saying anything beyond the first order outcomes, that is the mechanics of the processes; MN does not speak to origins or to the existance of God." Do I have this correct???
If so this is not even acedemically true.
I am not going to repeat myself for the fourth time. MN not only does not, but cannot speak to origins or to the existance of God.
You write, "If so this is not even acedemically true."
I don't accepty your authority for anything. Prove it. I promise you in advance that you will fail. Don't even bother to quote yourself, Earl, X, or others similarly intellectually challenged as authorities on this subject. I don't deny that there are many people who are incapable of understanding this distinction.
Sorry, correction:
MN may attempt to address origins but only within the boundaries of naturalism, and may not address the question of the existence of a God outside of nature.
Thanks ok Dennis, we all make mistakes.
Thanks Darrel. One thing I do know is that you are one of the good guys. 🙂
Thanks Dennis, so then I will forgive you for calling me a conservative earlier 🙂
I don't think that the label "conservative" is an insult. We need to "conserve" sound, proven ideas, rather than simply embrace the latest fad, just because it is more popular at the moment. 🙂
It’s alive! It’s alive! Dennis Hokama has revivified a long dead blog (https://atoday.org/article/1710/opinion/hoehn-jack/what-evolution-cannot-explain-and-the-church-must-not-forget )that I had laid to rest many months ago. So I went back and re-read my blog, with the same pleasure I get from looking at vacation pictures of years gone by! I found myself in retrospect fairly provocative and intentionally edgy. (“This naked man needed his naked and unashamed woman.” Did I write that?)
The resurrected blog is obviously Dennis’s blog now, not mine. I thank all the active A-Today bloggers that have risen to his bait. I was not writing to convince evolutionists they were wrong, I was writing to my brother and sister church members to convince them we are wrong to ignore the evidence from Creation that women were not created subservient to men.
I wasn’t of course writing to support evolutionist Lloyd’s theory, which can be dismissed by other evolutionary biologists as handily as she dismisses theirs. Hand waving and conjecturing how sexuality happened, “since we all know it must have evolved” is as one blogger responded, a “Darwin of the Gaps” exercise. I own Lloyd’s book in my library. I bought it because it is pretty good at showing how false many Darwinian speculations are, even though Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd has not revealed she will be joining the Discovery Institute any time soon.[i]
My argument is of course not a “God of the Gaps” argument, I am not arguing from a 19th century ignorance of nature, I am arguing from the recent and overwhelming 21st century knowledge of nature. I am not arguing that God must exist because of nature, I am arguing that neo-Darwinian mechanisms have been proven false by the facts now discovered in nature. And that nature, which as everyone agrees, appears to be designed, is better explained by a Designer than by undirected chance and luck.
For Dennis Hokema to have not had time to read Stephen Meyers Signature in the Cell on the ID case from cellular biology and Darwin’s Doubt on the ID case from fossils, “because there are too many books” sounds pathetic. We need to come back and talk sometime in the future after he is willing to take ID seriously, instead of accepting the propaganda that ID is just creationism in disguise.
But having restated this, the science is not my issue, I am not writing for evolutionists to convince them they are wrong. They are. But they are right that Adventism rigidity over creation is wrong too.
That goal was to show Adventist creationists how their faith can be strengthened by a long earth creationism. Open your creationism to the world as it is, not the world of methodological naturalism with its blinders, not the world of theistic evolution with its restrictions on God. The intelligently designed, God directed and maintained world of purpose and pleasure. Done the way God dealing with a rebellion has done it. Make Genesis the beginning of our understanding, but not the end of our understanding. Genesis is the introduction to the story, not the end or limiter of the story of life.
Sexuality in the creation does not have a convincing Darwinian explanation. Oppression of women pastors in Adventism does not have a convincing Biblical basis. Both are cultural results of the fallen nature of humanity. Both need correction from logic and inspiration working together.
Welcome back, Jack!
From what I have read, I can only conclude that you are not really interested in science per se, but only in sophisticated Christian apologetics that merely “sounds scientific.” It cannot be otherwise if your beginning premise is “Make Genesis the beginning of our understanding…” That is a dandy way of doing Christian apologetics; certainly better than the Ted Wilson approach, which is a disaster waiting to happen in 2015. I will give you that, as I have previously acknowledged.
You write,
“For Dennis Hokema (sic) to have not had time to read Stephen Meyers Signature in the Cell on the ID case from cellular biology and Darwin’s Doubt on the ID case from fossils, ‘because there are too many books’ sounds pathetic.”
To paraphrase Mae West, “so many books, so little time!” Everybody wants me to read a book that will validate their particular idiosyncratic theory, and wants to condemn me for being close minded if I don’t. John Cobb, the world class theologian/philosopher for example, recently gave a lecture in Loma Linda U in which he promoted a conspiratorial understanding of 911 in which the U.S. government was in on it, and the Muslim hijackers were only patsies that were set up.
My retired minister Dad is promoting the book Transformation which, he claims, will change everything, and if I don’t read it, I will lose out. (I actually did read Transformation to get him to stop pestering me, and am in the process of writing a review of that book, a review about which he will not be happy.) In the late 1970's, I was told the same thing about illuminati conspiracies, and I felt obligated to read a bunch of books about that.
Am I pathetic for not going whole hog on the conspiratorial theory of 911, or is it just Signature in the Cell that I am pathetic for not reading? What do I tell John Cobb?
You write,
“We need to come back and talk sometime in the future after he is willing to take ID seriously, instead of accepting the propaganda that ID is just creationism in disguise.”
So there are preconditions to having a discussion now? I suspect that you are presenting me with a false dichotomy here. I may end up reading Signature in the Cell, because I will be making a presentation on ID in December. But your mishandling of Lloyd’s book gives me no confidence that I will find the Pearl of Great Price within those pages. There is no end to apologetic rubbish, but there is an end to my free time. However, anything is possible.
Long earth creationism offers no significant answers to Dr Robert V. Gentry's 'scientific' findings regarding Polonium Halo's. Even in a court of law a where a case for creation to be given equal time with evolution in schools was contended, a scientist opposing creation had not a shred of evidence to challenge Dr Gentry's findings. In fact the best scholarly arguments against Dr Gentry's Polonium Halo's findings is to make personal opinionated attacks on him. Any shred of significant scientific evidence against his findings to date? Nada. He is a young earth creationist.
I have been reading this interesting thread from time to time where Dennis is keeping high the banner of rational thought and logic and doing such a excellent job of dealing with the the later day obsurists and their fellow travelers. However, Mr/Ms. 22 October 1844 mentioned Dr. Gentry. (By the way, his doctorate is an honorary one given to him by an Adventist college) I guess "22" does not read much outside of fundamentalist literature. Dr. Gentry's arguments based on his Polonium halos has been answered so many times. No serious scientist who knows the literature has taken his arguments seriously for at least a couple of decades. "22" should really get out more often.
If Mr Hokama didn't mention Christian in his comments to Dr Hoehn when he said "but only in sophisticated Christian apologetics that merely “sounds scientific.” – I would have thought he was talking about evolution, which to me, is a fine example of something that "sounds scientific."
To merely "sound" scientific, you have to use scientific vocabulary. To "be" scientific, you have to actually follow the basic rules and procedures of science. It doesn't matter to science what you or I think.
Dennis looks like you are “expert “in science, what is your line of research, how many peer review papers did you published?
At least Joe Erwin from all the evolutionist in AT tried to answers some serious questions. Now there is an absolute silence (maybe a profound ignorance in modern biology) from the “evos” when one presents serious arguments to the credibility of the fundaments of evolution.
I'm not surprised that Dr Taylor would strategically mention Dr Gentry's doctorate, obviously to downplay his work and to discredit him. What he perhaps has overlooked is that Dr Gentry received a masters degree in physics from the University of Florida and entered the doctoral program at Georgia Institute of Technology – but he was refused permission to work on the age of the Earth for his dissertation. He left thereafter. It is very likely that the evolution faith movement ganged up against him, even at Georgia Institute of Technology. Shame on them! What were they afraid Dr Gentry would find? If evolution theory was so watertight why would they deny him to work on a scientific study of the age of the Earth. I smell a very evolved rat.