Friday, April 1, 2011

Sean Carroll: Does the Universe Need God?

In his forthcoming chapter, Does the Universe Need God?, Sean Carroll (the physicist, not the geneticist) argues that while invoking god as an explanation for natural phenomena was once reasonable, now we can do much better. It is an example of the extent to which otherwise very smart people resort to special pleading to get the right answer.

From Aristotelianism to Newtonian physics, relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory, cosmologists have produced ever more accurate and plausible explanations for the origin and operation of the universe. For Carroll this march of progress seems inexorable. Are we not headed for a completely naturalistic explanation of the world?

Consider, for example, the multiverse idea where instead of a single universe, there are a great many universes. This multiverse allows evolutionists to overcome the low probabilities of this world, such as the fine-tuning of nature and the evolution of life. Astronomically unlikely events don’t matter if you have an astronomical number of chances. And while the multiverse hypothesis is often criticized as a just-so story, in fact it arises from what seem to be a reasonable set of hypothetical natural laws. The inexorable march of progress continues and Carroll concludes:

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.

Carroll’s thesis, it would seem, is a robust appeal to the successes of empirical science. From a scientific perspective, the world just happened, or so it appears. Any appeals to anything more than natural law is just an argument from ignorance.

But there are some flies in this Leibnizian ointment. For instance, what if there is no multiverse? For this Carroll falls back on the hypothesis that life is extremely robust. Yes, life seems to need this finely-tuned world, but who knows what other types of life there are. Carroll laments that not nearly enough credence is given to this option. Perhaps that is because it is so weak. It is not merely an argument from ignorance, it goes against what science is telling us. Yes, we certainly can’t make any firm conclusions, but the idea that life is extremely robust is not what science indicates.

Then there are those aspects of nature that are finely-tuned beyond what life requires. While fine-tuning to the requirements of life can be explained, in principle, as a result of selection in the multiverse (if there is one), what about those extremely fine-tuned parameters.

One such example is the universe’s initial entropy which is way too low. It is one part in a number that is so large it is difficult to describe. Usually with large numbers we use the exponential form. For example, for a one followed by fifty zeros, we write 10^50. But for the universe’s initial entropy, even the exponent is too large. It is, as Carroll writes, “a preposterous number,” and well beyond what is required for life.

For this problem Carroll once again appeals to our ignorance. Yes, it seems strange, but researchers are working on this problem. Perhaps they will succeed in figuring out why life would, in fact, require such an incredible level of fine-tuning.

But this is only Carroll’s warm up argument. He merely needs to show that a naturalistic account is not impossible. The strength of his argument is that god wouldn’t do it this way so, as usual, a naturalistic account is mandated.

If anything, the [excessive] tuning that characterizes the entropy of the universe is a bigger problem for the God hypothesis than for the multiverse. If the point of arranging the universe was to set the stage for the eventual evolution of intelligent life, why all the grandiose excess represented by the needlessly low entropy at early times and the universe’s hundred billion galaxies? We might wonder whether those other galaxies are spandrels – not necessary for life here on Earth, but nevertheless a side effect of the general Big Bang picture, which is the most straightforward way to make the Earth and its biosphere. This turns out not to be true; quantitatively, it’s easy to show that almost all possible histories of the universe that involve Earth as we know it don’t have any other galaxies at all. It’s unclear why God would do so much more fine-tuning of the state of the universe than seems to have been necessary.

So the excessive fine-tuning renders the multiverse impotent unless we can somehow manage to make life contingent on such a preposterous quantity. But no matter, this is really a problem for the god hypothesis. After all, such grandiose excess is capricious. If god were to create the world, he would do it to mimic selection. Evolutionists usually argue that god would not mimic selection, but when the need arises god’s role can always be reversed.

Finally there is the problem of why there is anything. If science is ultimately to provide “a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe,” as Carroll confidently expects, then how will it explain why there is anything? Does not a beginning, according to Kalam, necessitate a cause? The answer, for Carroll, is simply “no.” Some things we simply need to understand as brute facts:

It can be difficult to respond to this kind of argument. Not because the arguments are especially persuasive, but because the ultimate answer to “We need to understand why the universe exists/continues to exist/exhibits regularities/came to be” is essentially “No we don’t.” That is unlikely to be considered a worthwhile comeback to anyone who was persuaded by the need for a meta-explanatory understanding in the first place.

Granted, it is always nice to be able to provide reasons why something is the case. Most scientists, however, suspect that the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase “and that’s just how it is.”

Here Carroll’s special pleading reaches new heights. Where naturalism can explain the world, it serves as evidence for a materialistic understanding of ultimate reality. And where naturalism is inadequate, well so what. That doesn’t matter.

Incredible.

The fact that “most scientists” suspect ultimate explanations will never really be ultimate does not resolve the problem; rather, it is an acknowledgment of the problem. It is simply a reflection of their intuition of the limits of science.

For evolutionists the world spontaneously arose all by itself. No amount of evidence will change that conclusion, because the conclusion is theologically mandated. Without an evolutionary account we would have to conclude that god created the world. And we can do much better than that.

198 comments:

  1. I'm shocked. Shocked, I say, to see theology being preached on this blog!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter

    I'm guessing you followed the William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate. Am I right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter said...

    For evolutionists the world spontaneously arose all by itself.


    What does the formation of the universe, our solar system, or the planet Earth have to do with biological evolution? Can someone please explain?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well one thing is sure: God doesn't need the universe...
    or Sean Carroll...
    or full time bozos like Thorton who never cease to thrill us all with such profound depths of ... um ... er ... well ... gee ... ignorance?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode.

    Douglas Adams

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Why?" is the question most have, and the best science can ever offer is "how"...and then often unsatisfactorily (read Darwinian evolution). If scientists ever get their arms around the quantum fluctuation and can link our universe to a fluctuation in a multiverse, "why?" will still remain. It is a metaphysical question from a metaphysical mind that requires a metaphysical answer...the universe needs God.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pedant:

    "I'm shocked. Shocked, I say, to see theology being preached on this blog!"
    ===

    How could you possibly be shocked there Reverend ??? In the whole history of your presence here on these boards, YOU do it continually!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's astounding and also hypocritical that some "scientists" will allow (or even ardently believe) in the existence of (intelligent) extraterrestrials without any evidence, yet Heaven forbid we allow the possibility of GOD...especially when so much evidence points to His existence. (Genetic code, life from non-living matter, altruism, morality, not to mention Jesus' ministry and sacrifice on the cross.)

    You're absolutely right Dr Hunter, religion drives science and it matter!

    God bless you for being a beacon in a dark world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. hardy:

    "It's astounding and also hypocritical that some "scientists" will allow (or even ardently believe) in the existence of (intelligent) extraterrestrials without any evidence, . . . "
    ===

    One of the most interesting things to take note of is that many of the Sock-Puppets here and on other Combat forums[with regard to this subject] are heavily into online virtual gaming. Things like the occult, spiritism, mysticism, etc, etc, etc actually excite and intrigue these people. They create virtual mystic cult figures[superhuman Heroes, demons, monsters, etc] into what ever image they desire or imagine. They have a passion for delving into a mystic world of unreality of parallel universes and actually in some of their explanations here you will see some of these various ancient mythical philosophies bleeding out through their excuse making.

    They actually believe that what they are explaining is brand new and novel to our enlightened modern age, when in reality it is nothing more than glossed over ancient mysticism with it's words and terminology cleaned up to give it a sophisticated New Age flavour. As King Solomon said,

    Ecclesiastes 1:9 (New International Version, ©2011)

    (9) "What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun."

    ReplyDelete
  10. I didn't know King Solomon was a Buddhist!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Religion fails is when it has lost the power to compel. In Tudor England, the general populace had to at least pay lip service to the switching between Catholicism and Anglicism that occurred depending on the various whims of Henry, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.

    For some cultures compulsion and the requirement to conform to the particular cultural norm is still strong (Afganistan, for example).

    When all you have is the power to persuade, it's a little harder to get your view to prevail. I often wonder why it is so important for the religiously obsessed that others think like them. I guess it's an improvement on burning them alive.(Or shooting and beheading them!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Alan Fox:

    "When all you have is the power to persuade, it's a little harder to get your view to prevail. I often wonder why it is so important for the religiously obsessed that others think like them. I guess it's an improvement on burning them alive.(Or shooting and beheading them!"
    ===

    Hello Alan

    Yes, I can agree with the above. However it is also the perfect description of what the religion, ideology and philosophy of Atheism has done when they were in charge and had the power to force people to indoctrinate or die by the sword with numerous historical examples available to back this up. Clearly no one has to make anything up here on either side.

    Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Alan Fox:

    "I didn't know King Solomon was a Buddhist!"
    ===

    Actually this would be impossible since King Solomon was actually King in Israel between 1037 BCE - 998 BCE. Yet the references to Buddha's existance as being as follows: [wikipedia]

    "The time of his birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[2] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.[3][4]"

    So if anything, Buddha must have plagerized King Solomon and was in actual fact a Solomonist.

    Go figure!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kudos to Eocene for his posts on this thread.

    Peace and God bless

    ReplyDelete
  16. However it is also the perfect description of what the religion, ideology and philosophy of Atheism has done when they were in charge and had the power to force people to indoctrinate or die by the sword with numerous historical examples available to back this up. Clearly no one has to make anything up here on either side.

    Numerous examples of Atheism as political control? Are we talking the personality cult of Stalin via the elevation of Lenin to "sainthood"? Where did he get the idea, I wonder?

    Hitler, perhaps?

    Pol Pot?

    Is this what you are talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  17. King Solomon was actually King in Israel between 1037 BCE - 998 BCE.

    Other than biblical references, there is no trace of a Solomon as "King of Israel" as far as I can tell.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Now that I've had a chance to read Carroll's chapter, I see that it's excellent. Thanks, Dr Hunter, for bringing it up. Here's an excerpt from the concluding section: God as a theory:

    "Consider a hypothetical world in which science had developed to something like its current state of progress, but nobody had yet thought of God. It seems unlikely that an imaginative thinker in this world, upon proposing God as a solution to various cosmological puzzles, would be met with enthusiasm. All else being equal, science prefers its theories to be precise, predictive, and minimal – requiring the smallest possible amount of theoretical overhead. The God hypothesis is none of these. Indeed, in our actual world, God is essentially never invoked in scientific discussions. You can scour the tables of contents in major physics journals, or titles of seminars and colloquia in physics departments and conferences, looking in vain for any mention of possible supernatural intervention into the workings of the world."

    Sound familiar?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hunter:

    For evolutionists the world spontaneously arose all by itself. No amount of evidence will change that conclusion, because the conclusion is theologically mandated.

    That is incorrect on two counts:

    1) Empirical propositions about the world (universe) are hypotheses by definition, subject to test against evidence. They cannot be more than tentative conclusions.

    2) Theological propositions are not subject to test against evidence.

    Without an evolutionary account we would have to conclude that god created the world. And we can do much better than that.

    That is a false dichotomy. The question of the origin of the world (universe) is an empirical question, to be addressed by evidence. Creation by a god is a theological proposition, not subject to test against evidence. If current empirical hypotheses are falsified, they can only be replaced by new hypotheses that better explain the evidence.

    We don't "have to conclude" anything. We can keep working on the question.

    ReplyDelete
  20. CH: Carroll’s thesis, it would seem, is a robust appeal to the successes of empirical science. From a scientific perspective, the world just happened, or so it appears. Any appeals to anything more than natural law is just an argument from ignorance.

    Cornelius,

    It's not just that the scientific method has a good track record in explaining things. This is a simplistic interpretation. It's also what this success reveals about the particular relationship we as intelligent beings have with reality.

    One structure, the human brain, contains a working model of the structure of the universe. Furthermore, this model becomes more and more accurate over time. This is far from insignificant. The fact that the laws of physics allow, or even mandate it this can occur, is one of the most important facts about reality.

    It's not that evidence is scarce - we have plenty of evidence. What is scarce are deep and hard to vary explanations that account for that evidence. What's scarce is knowledge.

    We can say the same about resources. We have all the necessary resources we need. What we lack is the knowledge to transform those resources. Again, what's scarce is knowledge.

    In other words, we have what's necessary for the open-ended creation of knowledge.

    CH: But there are some flies in this Leibnizian ointment. For instance, what if there is no multiverse?

    Then God must have done it?

    Given the above, the possibility that a multiverse does not exits does not represent a fly Carroll's ointment. What you're ultimately denying is that an explanation for the biological complexity we observe exists at all. No such knowledge is possible.

    Again, I'm suggesting claims of supernatural causation can be distilled down to a an underlying claim of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. Essentially, you're claiming we do not have what we need for the open ended discovery of knowledge.This would be the supposed fly in Carroll's ointment, which you have yet to substantiate or even acknowledge.

    There is a difference between explanations being scarce and not existing at all.

    CH: Finally there is the problem of why there is anything.

    Such a fundamental question seems to hold a hidden premise. We could just as easily be inverted as "Why would there be absolutely nothing rather than something?"

    CH: For evolutionists the world spontaneously arose all by itself. No amount of evidence will change that conclusion, because the conclusion is theologically mandated.

    And we close with the usual misrepresentation and non-sequitur with appears to be Cornelius' trademark.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't understand how multiverse addresses the problem of the apparent fine tuning. There could just as easily be an infinite number of universes that are all the same, and none of them could accomodate life. Multiverse just pushes the question back one step.

    ReplyDelete
  22. natschuster:

    ===
    I don't understand how multiverse addresses the problem of the apparent fine tuning. There could just as easily be an infinite number of universes that are all the same, and none of them could accomodate life. Multiverse just pushes the question back one step.
    ===

    The multiverse is a solution in the sense that it gives evolutionists another shadow to hide in. Evolution's just-so stories have always relied on the gaps in our knowledge. As our knowledge grows, they need to find new gaps.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pedant:

    ===
    Now that I've had a chance to read Carroll's chapter, I see that it's excellent.
    ===

    So you agree with his assertion that god would not do more fine-tuning than necessary for life?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Pedant:

    ===
    Now that I've had a chance to read Carroll's chapter, I see that it's excellent.
    ===

    So you agree with his assertion that god would not do more fine-tuning than necessary for life?


    More reading comprehension problems CH, or just more dishonesty?

    Carroll did not assert that god would not do more fine-tuning than necessary for life.

    He just points out that there's no logical reason for God to make the amount of fine-tuning we see.

    In Carroll's own words:

    "It's unclear why God would do so much more fine-tuning of the state of the universe than seems to have been necessary."

    Carroll's point and your strawman mischaracterization of it are two very different arguments as you well know.

    Why do you persist in these frankly childish bait-n-switch word games?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thorton:

    ===
    Carroll did not assert that god would not do more fine-tuning than necessary for life.
    ===

    Indeed he did. He asserted that god doing the enormous level of over-tuning is a problem. This would not be so if it were plausible that god would do such over-tuning. In fact he said the excessive tuning is a *bigger* problem for the god hypothesis than for the multiverse.

    If it is not true that god would not do more fine-tuning than necessary for life, then there is no basis for saying it is a problem for the god hypothesis.

    IOW, the claim that the over-tuning is a problem for the god-hypothesis *entails* the premise that it is not plausible that god would do such over-tuning.

    I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Evolutionary thinking is underwritten by its heroic metaphysics. It then claims innocence of any such metaphysics. It is its own judge.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cornelius Hunter:

    "The multiverse is a solution in the sense that it gives evolutionists another shadow to hide in. Evolution's just-so stories have always relied on the gaps in our knowledge. As our knowledge grows, they need to find new gaps."
    ===

    Incredibly they are the very ones who jump all over anyone when you insist on seeing impirical proof that life spontaneusly arose from nothing more than the blind undirected forces of physics and chemicals. They will then boldly exclaim in condescending elistist tones that you don't know what evolution is , because the proof you demand is called Abiogenesis, and that's a horse of a different colour.

    Suddenly now, we are to believe that multi-universes are a part of evolution ???

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cornelius Hunter:

    "He[Carrol] asserted that god doing the enormous level of over-tuning is a problem. This would not be so if it were plausible that god would do such over-tuning. In fact he said the excessive tuning is a *bigger* problem for the god hypothesis than for the multiverse."
    ===

    I find it even more incredible that those very ones who tell the stories of what God would or wouldn't do have the uncanny ability to climb around inside the mind of an intelligence they insist does not exist and try and reveal what this non-existant entity would or wouldn't do. Now I know where some of these gamers get their ideas from when creating one of their superheroes or notorious demon-like characters in those virtual online world's of mysticism they are obsessed playing with. Or wait a minute, maybe it's the other way around. Maybe their ideas on Evolution are given inspiration by involvement in those online games ???

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!

    Truly, the only impirical observation of a thing evolving is nothing more than the theory itself.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hunter:

    IOW, the claim that the over-tuning is a problem for the god-hypothesis *entails* the premise that it is not plausible that god would do such over-tuning.

    I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Evolutionary thinking is underwritten by its heroic metaphysics. It then claims innocence of any such metaphysics. It is its own judge.


    When Carroll said, ” It's unclear why God would do so much more fine-tuning of the state of the universe than seems to have been necessary,” he was referring to YOUR theological metaphysics. Does anyone who discusses someone else’s theology necessarily and automatically become a theologian?

    Maybe Carroll should have a joint appointment in the nonexistent department of religious studies at CalTech.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Thorton:

    ===
    Carroll did not assert that god would not do more fine-tuning than necessary for life.
    ===

    Indeed he did. He asserted that god doing the enormous level of over-tuning is a problem. This would not be so if it were plausible that god would do such over-tuning. In fact he said the excessive tuning is a *bigger* problem for the god hypothesis than for the multiverse.

    If it is not true that god would not do more fine-tuning than necessary for life, then there is no basis for saying it is a problem for the god hypothesis.

    IOW, the claim that the over-tuning is a problem for the god-hypothesis *entails* the premise that it is not plausible that god would do such over-tuning.


    Keep pushing that dishonest strawman CH.

    Saying "God wouldn't do it that way" would claim to know the mind of God. That is NOT WHAT CARROLL SAID and it is NOT THE SAME as saying "the way it was done is a problem for the omnipotent God hypothesis".

    You seem to be pathologically incapable of presenting an honest restatement of any pro-science position. That makes it almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion on the topic when we have to spend all our time correcting your dishonest twisting of the words and meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hunter: The multiverse is a solution in the sense that it gives evolutionists another shadow to hide in. Evolution's just-so stories have always relied on the gaps in our knowledge. As our knowledge grows, they need to find new gaps.

    Pot, kettle, all that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Pedant:

    ===
    When Carroll said, ” It's unclear why God would do so much more fine-tuning of the state of the universe than seems to have been necessary,” . Does anyone who discusses someone else’s theology necessarily and automatically become a theologian?he was referring to YOUR theological metaphysics
    ===

    So you agree that excessive fine-tuning for life is a big problem for the god hypothesis?


    ===
    he was referring to YOUR theological metaphysics
    ===

    No, he was not, but let's take one point at a time. First, do you agree that excessive fine-tuning for life is a big problem for the god hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  32. oleg:

    ===
    Pot, kettle, all that.
    ===

    Do you agree that excessive fine-tuning for life is a big problem for the god hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Do you agree that excessive fine-tuning for life is a big problem for the god hypothesis?

    Nothing is a problem for the god hypothesis, and that's the problem with the god hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  34. oleg:

    ===
    What Norm said.
    ===

    OK, so you disagree with Carroll. You believe excessive fine-tuning is not a problem for the god-hypothesis because it is compatible with this outcome. But it is also compatible with the lack of excessive fine-tuning, and that's the problem with the god hypothesis. Is that what you're saying?

    ReplyDelete
  35. The hypothesis that God made the universe is infinitely flexible. God, after all, is supposed to be omnipotent, so He can do whatever he wants, however He likes. I see no point in arguing against such a vacuous proposition. If Carroll does that, it's foolish.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I guess I really don't understand the "fine-tuning" thing. As I see it, it's just the insightful observation that if a few things were slightly different, some other things would be very different. The plausibility of life is one of the latter kind of things, and we sure care a lot about the fact of being alive... so... THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED. Is that it?

    ReplyDelete
  37. * FINE-TUNED or FINELY-TUNED.
    I should tune my Englsih grammar and orthography finelyier ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  38. oleg:

    ===
    The hypothesis that God made the universe is infinitely flexible. God, after all, is supposed to be omnipotent, so He can do whatever he wants, however He likes. I see no point in arguing against such a vacuous proposition. If Carroll does that, it's foolish.
    ===

    Do you agree that the preposterous level of excessive fine-tuning in the universe’s initial entropy [100^(10^120)] is a problem for the multiverse explanation?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Geoxus:

    ===
    I guess I really don't understand the "fine-tuning" thing. As I see it, it's just the insightful observation that if a few things were slightly different, some other things would be very different. The plausibility of life is one of the latter kind of things, and we sure care a lot about the fact of being alive... so... THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED. Is that it?
    ===

    Yes, that's about it. To put it in context, when scientists began to understand natural laws and processes better, it became apparent that the workings of everything from basic chemistry to the universe are not robust, but extremely sensitive to the natural parameters (charge-to-mass ratio of the electron, etc). If these values were changed ever so slightly then there would be no stars, etc. Once again, nature had the obvious appearance of design.

    There are twists and turns to the story, and it is not simple. For instance, to decide whether something is finely-tuned one, presumably, must have an idea of the *possible* range of values, from which the finely-tuned range of values come. But how can we decide what the possible range of values of a natural constant, such as the gravitational constant, is?

    So it is not a simple story, but on the other hand, it seems obvious that the universe is finely-tuned. So I wouldn't trivialize it. It is a profound finding of modern science. A popular solution for explaining this observation is the multiverse.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yes, that's about it.

    Then, Douglas Adams really nailed it.

    Once again, nature had the obvious appearance of design.

    Assuming life is something utterly important in the "design" of the universe. What's the justification for that assumption, apart from the fact that we love ourselves very much?

    So it is not a simple story, but on the other hand, it seems obvious that the universe is finely-tuned. So I wouldn't trivialize it.

    I find it hard not to trivialise it. I can't see how the observation I described is a "problem" in the first place. And "obvious" is a dangerous concept.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Eocene said...

    Ecclesiastes 1:9 (New International Version, ©2011)

    (9) "What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun."

    ========================

    Not rubbish from the bible again!

    ReplyDelete
  42. CH: Do you agree that the preposterous level of excessive fine-tuning in the universe’s initial entropy [100^(10^120)] is a problem for the multiverse explanation?

    The ridiculous number you are talking about is not a measure of how unlikely the creation of our universe was. It is a reflection of our poor understanding of this phenomenon. The estimates of this sort are arrived at by assuming that new universes can appear with arbitrary parameters. That assumption is not necessarily correct.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Geoxus:

    ===
    I find it hard not to trivialise it. I can't see how the observation I described is a "problem" in the first place. And "obvious" is a dangerous concept.
    ===

    Here are some obvious explanations for fine-tuning (as laid out by Carroll):

    ###
    1. Life is extremely robust, and would be likely to arise even if the parameters were very different, whether or not we understand what form it would take.

    2. There is only one universe, with randomly-chosen parameters, and we just got lucky that they are among the rare values that allow for the existence of life.

    3. In different regions of the universe the parameters take on different values, and we are fooled by a selection effect: life will only arise in those regions compatible with the existence of life.

    4. The parameters are not chosen randomly, but designed that way by a deity.
    ##

    We don't want #4 for various reasons. #1 goes against what science is telling us. #2 seems unlikely. So that leaves #3. But excessive fine-tuning is a problem for it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. oleg:

    ===
    The ridiculous number you are talking about is not a measure of how unlikely the creation of our universe was. It is a reflection of our poor understanding of this phenomenon. The estimates of this sort are arrived at by assuming that new universes can appear with arbitrary parameters. That assumption is not necessarily correct.
    ===

    It is a given that future findings may change the picture. That is always the case. The question at hand is regarding our current knowledge and understanding. Its funny, for supporting evidence evolutionists appeal to the evidence. But for contrary evidence, evoltuionists appeal to our ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cornelius,
    I don't care much about Carroll's explanations because I really don't see the problem in the first place. Why is life supposed to be so important in the universe? That's the question I'm interested in. What about the puddle? Isn't he (sorry for sexualising it) as entitled to think that the universe was made for him as we are?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hunter: It is a given that future findings may change the picture. That is always the case. The question at hand is regarding our current knowledge and understanding. Its funny, for supporting evidence evolutionists appeal to the evidence. But for contrary evidence, evoltuionists appeal to our ignorance.

    Multiverse isn't evidence of evolution. It's an untested hypothesis that is at the current edge of science.

    There is plenty of accepted scientific knowledge that provides evidence for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Cornelius,

    Claims of universe creating do not exist in a vacuum.

    Carroll is taking the claim that God created the universe seriously, in that it actually occurred in reality and that all observations should conform to it. This leads to implied theories about the sort of universe that *would* have created should he have actually done so, in reality. We then compare these theories with what we observe.

    That you continually object to this line of criticism as "religious belief" suggests that either you don't event take your own argument seriously, which makes it an appeal to mere possibilities, or that you're simply being disingenuous in your claims.

    Of course, it could be that you're simply irrational, as others have claimed. Or perhaps your claims of "religious belief" could be based on divine revelation that suggest we all take sides in a dualistic battle between cosmic forces of good and evil.

    Without a comprehensive and coherent criteria for determining what is or is not scientific fact, it's difficult to tell what you position is.

    Based on one of your recent posts, it seems that "metaphysics" is OK as long as it's Biblical. Non-Biblical "metaphysics" is not.

    Is this your criteria? If not, then please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hunter, to me and others:

    So you agree that excessive fine-tuning for life is a big problem for the god hypothesis?

    I really don't care about problems for a god hypothesis (there are so many gods and hypotheses about them). Such concerns are irrelevant to science in any case. You're the one who seems to be obsessed about such pointless distractions.

    ReplyDelete
  50. oleg:

    ===
    Multiverse isn't evidence of evolution. It's an untested hypothesis that is at the current edge of science.
    ===

    So how do you explain fine-tuning, and excessive find-tuning? Just stick your head in the sand?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pedant:

    ===
    So you agree that excessive fine-tuning for life is a big problem for the god hypothesis?

    I really don't care about problems for a god hypothesis (there are so many gods and hypotheses about them). Such concerns are irrelevant to science in any case. You're the one who seems to be obsessed about such pointless distractions.
    ===

    So to summarize, the evolutionist's argument entails the usual metaphysics, the professor says the paper is excellent, but when questioned about it he erroneously tries to pin the metaphysics on me. See how it works? They use the metaphysics, and then blame it on you.

    Next question: Do you agree that excessive fine-tuning is a problem for the multiverse explanation?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Scott:

    ===
    Based on one of your recent posts, it seems that "metaphysics" is OK as long as it's Biblical. Non-Biblical "metaphysics" is not.
    ===

    No, I don't say metaphysics are not OK. That would be the evolutinists who say that (after they've made their religious mandates).

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hunter: So how do you explain fine-tuning, and excessive find-tuning? Just stick your head in the sand?

    Cornelius, sometimes I wonder whether you are for real.

    At the moment, science does not have an answer to that question. Cosmologists have put forward some speculations but those are just that—speculations. So, at the moment we do not know. That's the edge of science.

    It's not like this is the first time science does not have an answer to some burning question. A decade ago, there was this solar neutrino problem, remember? The measured flux of neutrinos reaching the Earth from the Sun did not agree with the amount deduced from the (well-known) rate of nuclear reactions happening on the Sun.

    What did creationists do? They saw God in the gaps:missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun. What did astrophysicists do? They speculated about the possible reasons, one of which was that neutrinos changed flavors as they flew between the Sun and the Earth. And since the counters were mostly sensitive to electron neutrinos, a sizable portion of neutrinos were missed.

    Need I tell you how that story was resolved?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hunter:

    So to summarize, the evolutionist's argument entails the usual metaphysics, the professor says the paper is excellent, but when questioned about it he erroneously tries to pin the metaphysics on me. See how it works? They use the metaphysics, and then blame it on you.

    I think Carroll's chapter is excellent, because it taught me a lot about current cosmology. That doesn't oblige me or anyone to defend any arguments made about cosmology by Carroll in that chapter. I acknowledge limits to my expertise.

    You're the metaphysician here, Dr Hunter, so you get pinned.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Geoxus:

    ===
    I don't care much about Carroll's explanations because I really don't see the problem in the first place. Why is life supposed to be so important in the universe? That's the question I'm interested in. What about the puddle?
    ===

    But the fact that there may be other instances of fine-tuning doesn't change the fact of fine-tuning. How do you explain the fine-tuning we observe in nature?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Pedant:

    ===
    CH: So to summarize, the evolutionist's argument entails the usual metaphysics, the professor says the paper is excellent, but when questioned about it he erroneously tries to pin the metaphysics on me. See how it works? They use the metaphysics, and then blame it on you.

    Pedant: You're the metaphysician here, Dr Hunter, so you get pinned.
    ===

    In fact I'm not the metaphysician here. My metaphysics are not determinative when it comes to evolution and origins.

    You can explain this over and over, but to no avail.

    ReplyDelete
  57. oleg:

    ===
    Hunter: So how do you explain fine-tuning, and excessive find-tuning? Just stick your head in the sand?

    Oleg: Cornelius, sometimes I wonder whether you are for real. At the moment, science does not have an answer to that question. Cosmologists have put forward some speculations but those are just that—speculations. So, at the moment we do not know. That's the edge of science.
    ===

    So why is it that some speculations (such as the origin of life and the species) are scientific facts, with only the details to be worked out, whereas others (such as fine-tuning) are scientific problems, awaiting their solution?

    Could it be the naturalism requires (i) the origin of life to be a fact and (ii) fine tuning to be an illusion? Is there a naturalistic bias at work, or is this just good science?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Cornelius:

    How do you explain the fine-tuning we observe in nature?

    I guess I fail to grasp something about the "fine-tuning" concept, because I can't understand why physicists take it seriously. I don't see fine-tuning anywhere. It sounds to me like a Panglossian idea.

    oleg, could you explain it please? I have no idea about cosmology.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Cornelius,

    One of the examples of fine tuning in physics is the hierarchy problem of the Higgs mass. Attempts to calculate the mass of the Higgs boson in straightforward extensions of the Standard Model yield nonsensical answers unless parameters of the extended model are fine-tuned.

    God of the gaps, again? Yes, say creationists. Physicists, on the other hand, are looking for natural solutions of the hierarchy problem. One of the favorite proposals is the idea of supersymmetry (SUSY), which leads to a cancellation of the quantum corrections to the Higgs mass at the Planck scale and thus resolves the hierarchy problem. Supersymmetry has observable consequences: every known particle should have a known supersymmetric partner of a larger mass. A search for these supersymmetric partners is ongoing at the LHC.

    Will SUSY solve the hierarchy problem? Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I should clarify: I understand some phenomena are highly dependant on slight variations in some fundamental physical parameters. What I really don't understand is what's the big deal about it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Hunter: So why is it that some speculations (such as the origin of life and the species) are scientific facts, with only the details to be worked out, whereas others (such as fine-tuning) are scientific problems, awaiting their solution?

    You are exaggerating. The origin of life is not a solved problem. Point out a textbook or review paper that claims otherwise.

    Speciation, on the other hand, is well understood. Some creationists will never accept that, but hey, there are crackpots rejecting Einstein's relativity, too.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Cornelius Hunter

    "Could it be the naturalism requires (i) the origin of life to be a fact and (ii) fine tuning to be an illusion? Is there a naturalistic bias at work, or is this just good science?"

    It is a giant conspiracy didn't you know that? The scientist are set out to disprove god.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Geoxus:

    ===
    I guess I fail to grasp something about the "fine-tuning" concept, because I can't understand why physicists take it seriously.
    ===

    You could look at the Carroll paper.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Cornelius:

    You could look at the Carroll paper.

    Sure, I will.

    ReplyDelete
  65. oleg:

    ===
    Hunter: So why is it that some speculations (such as the origin of life and the species) are scientific facts, with only the details to be worked out, whereas others (such as fine-tuning) are scientific problems, awaiting their solution?

    You are exaggerating. The origin of life is not a solved problem. Point out a textbook or review paper that claims otherwise.
    ===

    Sure, claims about evolution and OOL sometimes differ. But not typically. First you need to distinguish between fact and theory. Evolutionists say evolution is both. It is a theory with details yet to be worked out, but the over arching idea is a given. So evolution (OOL as well as the origin of the species) is viewed as an unsolved problem, but also as a fact. Here is just one example of OOL being claimed as a given:

    ###
    For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells. [National Academy of Sciences, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2d ed., 1999, p. 6]
    ###


    ===
    Speciation, on the other hand, is well understood. Some creationists will never accept that, but hey, there are crackpots rejecting Einstein's relativity, too.
    ===

    Speciation is not the issue--it is not synonymous with evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hunter, quoting from NAS: For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells.

    That is precisely the scientific approach. Come up with a model and test it. So far no one has done that and I don't think you can find a claim to that effect.

    Hunter: Speciation is not the issue--it is not synonymous with evolution.

    Say what??

    ReplyDelete
  67. oleg:

    ===
    That is precisely the scientific approach. Come up with a model and test it. So far no one has done that and I don't think you can find a claim to that effect.
    ===

    You're all over the map. First you said evolutionists don't say OOL is a fact. Now you're saying they haven't come up with any models and tested them. Of course they have. They've working on OOL for the better part of a century.

    ===
    Hunter: Speciation is not the issue--it is not synonymous with evolution.

    Say what??
    ===

    Minor changes qualify as speciation. Failure to be capable of interbreeding can be claimed as speciation. The mechanisms are pretty well understood and are not indicative of producing innovations, complexities, large-scale change, etc. Evolution, OTH, is the idea that all life arose via natural laws and processes.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Hunter: You're all over the map. First you said evolutionists don't say OOL is a fact. Now you're saying they haven't come up with any models and tested them. Of course they have. They've working on OOL for the better part of a century.

    No. I mean to say that so far none of the models have been confirmed empirically. OOL is work in progress. It's an active are of research. Coverage of OOL in Nature.

    Minor changes qualify as speciation. Failure to be capable of interbreeding can be claimed as speciation. The mechanisms are pretty well understood and are not indicative of producing innovations, complexities, large-scale change, etc. Evolution, OTH, is the idea that all life arose via natural laws and processes.

    You mentioned "the origin... of the species" here. That's speciation. You want to complain about differences between micro and macroevolution, be my guest. But this train has left the station a while ago.

    ReplyDelete
  69. oleg:

    ===
    You mentioned "the origin... of the species" here. That's speciation.
    ===

    No, "the origin of *the* species" ~= "speciation". Two very different things.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hunter: No, "the origin of *the* species" ~= "speciation". Two very different things.

    Wikipedia: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

    ReplyDelete
  71. UC Berkeley Evolution 101: Speciation. What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve? Here, you can explore different ways to define a species and learn about the various processes through which speciation can occur.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Merriam-Webster dictionary: Speciation — the process of biological species formation.

    ReplyDelete
  73. oleg:

    ===
    Hunter: No, "the origin of *the* species" ~= "speciation". Two very different things.

    Wikipedia: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

    UC Berkeley Evolution 101: Speciation. What are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve? Here, you can explore different ways to define a species and learn about the various processes through which speciation can occur.

    Merriam-Webster dictionary: Speciation — the process of biological species formation.
    ===

    Right, speciation is an evolutionary process. It does not explain all of evolution (to put it mildly). Nonetheless this has always been a key claim of evolutionists. They draw a false dichotomy between fixity of species and evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  74. So, speciation is the evolutionary process by which new species arise, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Oleg: So, speciation is the evolutionary process by which new species arise, isn't it?

    Evolutionary process also have a strong influence on which species go extinct. This, in turn, alters the fitness landscape, available habitat, food supply, etc. for species that do survive. An extinct species cannot compete for the same food supply, hunt other species to extinction, etc.

    In other words, even if evolutionary processes were limited to neutral, mild and highly detrimental effects, it would still have a significant impact on speciation.

    ReplyDelete
  76. CH: Right, speciation is an evolutionary process. It does not explain all of evolution (to put it mildly). Nonetheless this has always been a key claim of evolutionists. They draw a false dichotomy between fixity of species and evolution.

    Cornelius,

    While we're on the subject of completeness, design isn't limited to just the particular features that an organism exhibits. When a species goes extinct, the majority of it's features cease to exist. The absence of features is just as important as their continued existence.

    As such, what "explains" the fact that human beings have yet to go extinct, unlike over 98% of all species that have ever existed?

    Was this an unplanned outcome or the result of intervention on the part of an intelligent agent?

    ReplyDelete
  77. oleg:

    ===
    So, speciation is the evolutionary process by which new species arise, isn't it?
    ===

    Right, you got it.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I had it, Cornelius. What's up with your comment?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Cornelius has lost it. He's randomly flinging mud Gish Gallop style at any and all aspects of the evolutionary sciences just to see what sticks.

    ReplyDelete
  80. oleg:

    So this is a great example of how discussions go with evolutionists. First we had this:

    ===
    CH: Speciation is not the issue--it is not synonymous with evolution.

    oleg: Say what??

    CH: Minor changes qualify as speciation. Failure to be capable of interbreeding can be claimed as speciation. The mechanisms are pretty well understood and are not indicative of producing innovations, complexities, large-scale change, etc. Evolution, OTH, is the idea that all life arose via natural laws and processes.
    ===

    Next this:

    ===
    oleg: You mentioned "the origin... of the species" here. That's speciation.

    CH: No, "the origin of *the* species" ~= "speciation". Two very different things.
    ===

    And next this:

    ===
    oleg: Wikipedia: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. [...]

    CH: Right, speciation is an evolutionary process. It does not explain all of evolution (to put it mildly). Nonetheless this has always been a key claim of evolutionists. They draw a false dichotomy between fixity of species and evolution.
    ===

    And finally, you realize this isn't about science:

    ===
    oleg: So, speciation is the evolutionary process by which new species arise, isn't it?

    CH: Right, you got it.

    oleg: I had it, Cornelius. What's up with your comment?
    ===


    You went along with the questions thinking they were sincere. You thought this actually was an evolutionist seeking information. You answer the questions, you provide the information, and finally you realize this was never about science. Ever since Darwin the evolutionary dogma has been fixated on the fixity of species. If we can find any change in the biological world, then all of evolution is a fact.

    You would be wrong if you think oleg's comments are not typical. For example, see:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/04/like-confessing-murder.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-lenski-on-fact-of-evolution.html

    ReplyDelete
  81. Cornelius Hunter said...


    (picks up more mud)



    toss...SPLAT!

    toss...SPLAT!

    toss...SPLAT!


    ...and so it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  82. CH: You went along with the questions thinking they were sincere. You thought this actually was an evolutionist seeking information. You answer the questions, you provide the information, and finally you realize this was never about science

    What we're seeking is a comprehensive and coherent position on your part. Apparently, this isn't a sincere question.

    The information we OUGHT to be seeking is the supposed knowledge that our thoughts are corrupted by sin. You have the inside track. Evolutionary thinking represents collateral damage from the cosmic, dualistic battle of good and evil that rages in this age. We all take part even if we refuse to admit it or even realize it.

    Is this an accurate summation? If not, then what is? Please provide a comprehensive and coherent alternative explanation for your selective objections.

    Of course, I've already asked this question 3-4 times in the past, so I won't be holding my breath waiting for a response of any kind.

    ReplyDelete
  83. In some aspects the universe seems to be under fine-tuned:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-death-of-fine-tuning/

    so you can make of it whatever you think.

    What I think is interesting about this post is that the lack of acceptance for fine tuning is a serious problem for Prof. Hunters claims about the underlying metaphysics of the “evolutionists”. And I think that somehow dawns on Prof. Hunter while he like most creationist has not realized that a fine tuning of the universe would be incompatible with IDC.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ever since Darwin the evolutionary dogma has been fixated on the fixity of species.

    A scientific theory is not a dogma. But our metaphysician seems to be unable to make that distinction.

    Ever before Darwin, since the dawn of history, the accepted view of species in Western civilization was essentialism, the view that species are indeed fixed and immutable (as one or another god might have created them at the beginning of time). Darwin challenged that view by recognizing the significance of the observed plasticity of species and went on to develop a theory incorporating that plasticity to explain the origins and extinctions of species over geological time.

    If we can find any change in the biological world, then all of evolution is a fact.

    That is a straw non-sequitur. In reality, observed change in the biological world is an important element of the theory of evolution. However, the fact of evolution is a tentative, but well-supported, conclusion based on a consilience of evidence, including geological, paleontological, biogeographical, taxonomic, genetic and other evidences viewed in light of the theory of evolution. That legions of species have come and gone over vast periods of geological time is a well-supported fact.

    As someone said, “You can explain this over and over, but to no avail.”

    ReplyDelete
  85. Heh, my latest comment has disappeared. Not gonna bother repeating it.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Cornelius,

    If my earlier comment is inaccurate, then please explain the following quotes from various comments here on your blog.

    CH: Yes, evolution and evolutionists can be frustrating. But what they need is forgiveness, not anger or judgment.

    CH: Though it may have been a great victory at the time, ultimately the Kitzmiller trial will likely lead to a downfall for evolutionists. For what does a man profit if he gains the whole world but loses his very soul?

    Apparently, evolutionists are not merely mistaken, they need forgiveness and will lose their soul.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Did you say special pleading? Because I always thought that's exactly what belief in any religion is. Look it up and think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Pedant:

    ===
    That is a straw non-sequitur.
    ===

    No, it is what evolutionists routinely say, going back to Darwin.

    ===
    In reality, observed change in the biological world is an important element of the theory of evolution. However, the fact of evolution is a tentative,
    ===

    And once again you misrepresent evolution. Evolutionists say it would be preverse and irrational to doubt the fact of evolution. That is not "tentative."

    ===
    but well-supported, conclusion based on a consilience of evidence, including geological, paleontological, biogeographical, taxonomic, genetic and other evidences
    ===

    Yes there is a consilience, a consilience of counter indicative evidence.

    ===
    That legions of species have come and gone over vast periods of geological time is a well-supported fact.
    ===

    That is an absurd strawman. For the umpeenth time the evolution counters criticism of his ridiculous claim that it is a fact that the species spontaneously arose on its own with the incredible equivocation that all he has been talking about is change over time. This silly game-playing, alone, is a obvious indictment of evolutionary thought. It is not just Pendant, one hears this over and over. First they claim life originated spontaneously, and then spontaneously spawned the millions of species via natural selection acting on biological variation.

    To top it off they claim it is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. It would be preverse to doubt it, they say.

    This inspite of monumental scientific problems. The claim that evolution is such a clear fact is completely undefendable. Not surprisingly, when you ask them to defend it they fall on their face. The idea is scientifically ludicrous.

    But when you point this out they backpedal and equivocate, saying that there is no question that different species have come and gone over time. Why how silly of you do question this, you silly creationist.

    If you read their literature, and interact with these people, you can see what it is all about. It isn't pretty.

    ===
    As someone said, “You can explain this over and over, but to no avail.”
    ===

    Yes, you have explained it over and over. You have come here repeatedly with foolish statements. You obviously are interested in promoting and propagating your ridiculous mythology with whatever canards and misrepresentations are needed.

    And you are a professor, in charge of educating inquiring minds. This is how evolutionists maintain primacy, by controlling the textbooks and curriculum. They filter out and blackball those who question their dogma, and guess what's left?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hunter: And you are a professor, in charge of educating inquiring minds. This is how evolutionists maintain primacy, by controlling the textbooks and curriculum. They filter out and blackball those who question their dogma, and guess what's left?

    And that is hardly the only example of orthodoxy dominating modern sciences! Physics departments are populated by relativists and quantum types who filter out and blackball those who question their dogmas.

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  90. Dr. Hunter,

    I agree with the point that it is folly to try to use science to disprove the existence of God. To make assuptions about what an unsubstantiated, supernatural entity would or wouldn't do will always be mere supposition.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Dr. Hunter,

    I disagree with your implication of Carrol's "No we don't" argument;
    "And where naturalism is inadequate, well so what. That doesn’t matter."


    Carrol says in his quote "That's just how it is." As you correctly noted, Carrol's statement is an admission of the limits of science, but you mischaracterize this as the statement, "[the unexplainable] doesn't matter." Implying that because we don't know something we are willfully ignorant of it.

    You expand on this in the next paragraph, but it is a bit confusing to me:
    "The fact that “most scientists” suspect ultimate explanations will never really be ultimate does not resolve the problem; rather, it is an acknowledgment of the problem. It is simply a reflection of their intuition of the limits of science"

    What exactly is the problem? That our abilities have physical limits, i.e. there are some things that we cannot know? Or is it that you believe that we can know more but the problem is naturalism is holding us back?

    It seems to me that you are implying that a denial of God is the only reason some things are unexplainable? Godel showed that in Math there are some truth's that can never be proven and some falsehoods that can never be disproven. But you don't have to be an athiest to use arithmatic. We can't know all mathematical truths, but that doesn't mean mathematics is useless--or even flawed--that's just how it is.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Olegt:
    Speciation, on the other hand, is well understood. Some creationists will never accept that, but hey, there are crackpots rejecting Einstein's relativity, too.

    Umm YECs accept speciation and have for over 200 years. Karl von Linne (a Creationist) put the Created Kind at the level of Genus.

    OTOH the ORIGIN of species is synonymous with the origin of life.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hunter:

    But when you point this out they backpedal and equivocate, saying that there is no question that different species have come and gone over time. Why how silly of you do question this, you silly creationist.

    Seriously, Dr Hunter, do you question that species have come and gone over time? If you have an alternative explanation (hypothesis) for the changes in the fossil record in relation to the geological succession, please share it. Or, failing that, would it be possible for you to identify the pertinent facts or interpretations that you doubt?

    And you are a professor, in charge of educating inquiring minds.

    I was, once, but now I'm merely a septuagenarian grandpa, on the verge of becoming an octogenarian, so the only minds I can poison are those of my grandchildren. Heh.

    I acknowledge that I can't poison the minds of true believers, like yourself and your acolytes who post here, but I can call you out on your foolish claims.

    I am a late career mind-poisoner, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  94. T. Cook:

    ===
    I agree with the point that it is folly to try to use science to disprove the existence of God.
    ===

    That wasn't my point.

    ReplyDelete
  95. T. Cook:

    ===
    What exactly is the problem? That our abilities have physical limits, i.e. there are some things that we cannot know? Or is it that you believe that we can know more but the problem is naturalism is holding us back?
    ===

    Neither. The problem is: Why is there anything?

    ReplyDelete
  96. oleg:

    ===
    I remain interested in what meant to say by that cryptic phrase. Would you mind explaining yourself?
    ===

    "the origin of *the* species" is a variation on the title of Darwin's book introducing evolution. Adding "the" just clarifies that we're talking about the big picture. Evolution is the claim that the species, *all* the species, arose spontaneously according to natural laws and processes.

    I used that phrase to distinguish (i) the origin of the species from (ii) the origin of first life.



    ===
    Hunter: Ever since Darwin the evolutionary dogma has been fixated on the fixity of species. If we can find any change in the biological world, then all of evolution is a fact.

    oleg: Well, the last time I checked on Merriam-Webster, evolution was "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." That idea is the opposite of the fixity of species.
    ===

    OK, but the falsification of either one does not imply the other. You could say white and black are opposites, but not white does not imply black.


    ===
    Accusing evolutionary biologists of "fixating on the fixity of species" is like saying that Einstein and Bohr fixated on Newtonian mechanics.
    ===

    Only given your false dichotomy of evolution versus fixity of species. Again, read:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/04/like-confessing-murder.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/12/richard-lenski-on-fact-of-evolution.html

    ReplyDelete
  97. Pedant:

    ===
    Seriously, Dr Hunter, do you question that species have come and gone over time?
    ===

    No, I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  98. CH said, "And you are a professor, in charge of educating inquiring minds. This is how evolutionists maintain primacy, by controlling the textbooks and curriculum. They filter out and blackball those who question their dogma, and guess what's left? "

    As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible. They then test their experiment quite thoroughly. Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny. What a travesty of the scientific method to show small scale change and assume large scale change. Alas, when the spade is called they bar the door and take up defensive and unfalsifible positions.

    CH is a kind of Evolutionary MythBuster.

    ReplyDelete
  99. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Pedant: Seriously, Dr Hunter, do you question that species have come and gone over time?

    CH: No, I don't.

    This is like pulling teeth… If you don't deny this, then exactly what do you deny?

    Again, your claim of design doesn't exist in a vacuum.

    If we attempt to take it seriously, in that we assume it's true in reality and that all observations should conform to it, one of these observation includes the fact that over 98% of all species species have ever existed have gone extinct.

    What explains the fact that human beings exist in the less than 2% that have yet to go extinct?

    Was this an unplanned outcome or the result of intervention on the part of an intelligent agent?

    If you won't even take your own claim seriously, then why should you expect us to?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Scott: What we're seeking is a comprehensive and coherent position on your part. Apparently, this isn't a sincere question.

    The information we OUGHT to be seeking is the supposed knowledge that our thoughts are corrupted by sin. You have the inside track. Evolutionary thinking represents collateral damage from the cosmic, dualistic battle of good and evil that rages in this age. We all take part even if we refuse to admit it or even realize it.

    Scott: If my earlier comment is inaccurate, then please explain the following quotes from various comments here on your blog.

    CH: [Ignores question yet again]

    Again, if you won't even take your own claim seriously, then why should you expect us to?

    The question is relevant as you're a professing Christian and Jesus was an Apocalyptic Jew. Given that you've had ample time to respond to other comments, I'll assume it's an accurate assumption.

    Of course, you're free to clarify your position, which is a chance that many of the "evolutionists" you supposedly speak for never get.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Neal Tedford:

    "Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny. Alas, when the spade is called they bar the door and take up defensive and unfalsifible positions."
    ===

    Of course not. This is why the world is treated to nothing more than definition shell gaming, hijacking of mechanisms that have ZERO to do with evolution and hanging evolutionary lables on them, and then when called on the carpet for this and exposed, even backed into a corner, suddenly like a vicious wounded animal, the best responses they can come up with are vulgarities, personal insults(as Cornelius often is bombarded with), foul language, name calling etc, etc, etc. When they can't come up with anything but the later, then you know you have them.
    ---

    Neal Tedford:

    "What a travesty of the scientific method to show small scale change and assume large scale change."
    ===

    The scientific method is hardly ever used properly. Supposedly a scientific experiment was conducted by which factual conclusions were proved by the evidence. Supposedly this experiment should be easy for anyone else to create, replicate and arrive at the same exact conclusions as the originator of the first experiment. Unfortunately you don't find out till later that mammoth amounts of speculation, assumption, assertion and personal bias using their eye of FAITH is what brought them to their conclusions. If you don't possess their eye of faith on the matter, you'll never come to the conclusions they claimed to have observed.

    Take some of the word games as an example of raming evolution down the world's throat. The word "micro-evolution". It's a sort of covert compromise word which describes nothing more than the same kind of organism adapting to it's environment and surviving, nothing more. Yet as you stated above, these mechanisms are assumed to be the incrimental componants by which macro-evolution take place, thought no one has the ability to observe or factually prove this other than soothsaying.

    The word "micro-evolution" has yet another purpose. Often you will hear many say that someone who believes in creation believes in micro-evolution. It's a slippery way of getting the actual word "evolution" itself into the conversation anyway when discussing anything about science, even though the subject has ZERO to do with their dogma. It's like taking a sledge hammer and pounding the proverbial square peg and forcing it to fit into the round hole.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Scott,

    Obviously you guys don't take your position seriously as you never produce positive evidence to support it.

    Your position must be so pathetic that you don't even try to support it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The comment system is pretty bad. Another comment of mine has vanished.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Yes, oleg, it happens.

    If you are not writing your posts on a word doc and then transferring them here you may be wasting your time.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Pedant: Seriously, Dr Hunter, do you question that species have come and gone over time?

    CH: No, I don't.

    Scott: This is like pulling teeth… If you don't deny this, then exactly what do you deny?


    Hunter stoutly denies the fact of evolution. BUT, if one accepts the fact that species have come and gone over time, one has accepted a crucial element of the claim that evolution is a fact. I don't think one can reconcile periodic appearances and disappearances of species over geologic time with a Genesis-like account of original creation followed by stasis. So maybe we're making some progress.

    Next would be consideration of the age of the earth, the geologic column, and the succession of fossils within it. Will Dr Hunter choose to go there?

    One tooth at a time...

    ReplyDelete
  107. Pedant: However, the fact of evolution is a tentative, but well-supported, conclusion based on a consilience of evidence, including geological, paleontological, biogeographical, taxonomic, genetic and other evidences viewed in light of the theory of evolution.

    Hunter: Yes there is a consilience, a consilience of counter indicative evidence.


    That might be true. What theory explains that consilience of counter-indicative evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Pedant,

    First you should ask Dr Hunter how he is defining "evolution". My bet he defines it like this:

    “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    As for the age of the earth how can we make that determination without knowing how it was formed?

    ReplyDelete
  109. JoeTard said...

    As for the age of the earth how can we make that determination without knowing how it was formed?


    Go on Joe, tell us the one about how the Designer really created the Earth only 6000 years ago but used 4.55 billion year old materials. We laughed for days the last time you trotted out that tardfest. Be sure to include your "proof": the table you made last week out of 100 year old wood.

    ReplyDelete
  110. tardtard:
    Go on Joe, tell us the one about how the Designer really created the Earth only 6000 years ago but used 4.55 billion year old materials.

    Why would I say that? There isn't any evidence for a 6,000 year old earth. And there isn't any need for 4.55 billion year old materials.

    So tell us, tardtard, what is your position's testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth?

    Or are you too cowardly to produce such a thing? Or is it such a thing doesn't exist?

    ReplyDelete
  111. JoeTard said...

    T: Go on Joe, tell us the one about how the Designer really created the Earth only 6000 years ago but used 4.55 billion year old materials.

    Why would I say that?


    You said it for the same reason you say all the other incredibly stupid things about the sciences you don't understand. You're a clueless moron.

    ReplyDelete
  112. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  113. tardtard:
    You said it...

    Except I never said that. Never. You are a liar. I guess lying is all you have.

    ReplyDelete
  114. So, not only are you a liar, you are also too much of a coward to produce a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.

    Got it...

    ReplyDelete
  115. And thorton, we are still laughing at your gene of length 32 base pairs = 2^5 = 5 bits of information!


    BWAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA

    ReplyDelete
  116. Eocene said, "Supposedly a scientific experiment was conducted by which factual conclusions were proved by the evidence. Supposedly this experiment should be easy for anyone else to create, replicate and arrive at the same exact conclusions as the originator of the first experiment."

    Sometimes the mythbusters on the discovery channel find that the claim of a myth is not completely false, but exaggerated. These exaggerated myths are still busted. Evolutionists need to take a cold shower, drink a strong cup of coffee and go into the lab and ask themselves how they can bust their theory. Good theories hold up and don't need excuses.

    ReplyDelete
  117. JoeTard said...

    T: Be sure to include your "proof": the table you made last week out of 100 year old wood.

    Except I never said that. Never. You are a liar. I guess lying is all you have.


    From JoeTard's blog

    How old is the desk

    If you scurry real quickly maybe you can erase that blog entry before anyone sees it JoeTard.

    ReplyDelete
  118. thorton,

    Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a lowlife lying loser.

    tardtard:
    Go on Joe, tell us the one about how the Designer really created the Earth only 6000 years ago but used 4.55 billion year old materials.

    Why would I say that?

    tardtard:
    You said it...

    Except I never said that. Never. You are a liar. I guess lying is all you have.

    Thanks again. You are a perfect example of an evotard.

    ReplyDelete
  119. So, not only are you a liar, you are also too much of a coward to produce a testable hypothesis for the formation of the earth.

    Got it...

    ReplyDelete
  120. tardtard:
    Be sure to include your "proof": the table you made last week out of 100 year old wood

    It was just an example of taking something old and making something new out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Cornelius Hunter:
    The problem is: Why is there anything?"

    I see. For you, "that’s just how it is" doesn't cut it, huh?

    All of the commenters here would agree, I think, that natural law can't explain what came before the universe. At this point, materialists are forced to give up; shrug their shoulders and resign themselves to the fact that some things just can't be figured out.

    Those among us that believe in God think it's obvious that God created the universe, and so we have a final answer to the above--and all other--questions that science cannot answer. However, for this explanation to work there needs to be a God.

    It leads me to wonder what evidence is there that God actually exists? Is the universe itself proof of God? If it is, then wouldn't that be wrong to use God also as the explanation for the existence of the universe? I think so. We can't have our explanation be evidence for our explanation. That's the same kind of logic evolution supporters are often accused of in this blog and comments.

    On the other hand, maybe we can just use God as the explanation; if it's the best explanation. If it is, then it can also act as evidence. So I have to ask, why is the God explanation more persuasive than "that's just how it is?"

    Neither explanations need precursurs. Neither reason is explanitory; it come's down to "that's just how it is," vs. "that's just how he did it."

    The God explanation is explanitory if we assume something about his nature--love or whatever. But we, as scientists, should have some evidence that indicate his nature. We get evidence from his creation--explan how he is based on his creation--and end up with and elaboration of "that's how it is." Thats how it is because that's how he made it. He is a type that is want to make it how it is. We know this because it is how it is (which he made).

    ReplyDelete
  122. Joe: Obviously you guys don't take your position seriously as you never produce positive evidence to support it.

    Your position must be so pathetic that you don't even try to support it.


    Joe,

    And that position is? It's not that an all knowing, all powerful being couldn't possibly have manipulated or compensating for evolutionary processes via some sort of miracle. Such a being could have done so in such a way that would be indistinguishable from a random outcome.

    In fact, this would be no different than traveling millions of years in the past or future to actually observe one species change into another in the wild. All observations are theory laden. We can not be 100% certain that what appears to be an observed random mutation wasn't actually a miraculous intervention. As such you could still claim a lack of evidence.

    After all, the Bible describes over 70 instances where God supposedly expresses his will though the casting of lots.

    But this is no different than any other theory or field in science. Such a being could miraculous intercede in any experiment we observe or even pushed on a geological plate in a slightly different direction to cause some different geological formation to appear in the past. We cannot rule this out with 100% certainly either.

    It might be that God wanted us to have exactly five fingers, rather than four, six or some other number of digits which would have naturally occurred. We'd be none the wiser. This is not a claim that evolution makes. As such, it does not present evidence that miracles are impossible or that we're certain they did not occur.

    Joe: My bet he defines it like this:

    […]all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material […]

    As they say, the devil is in the details.

    As the topic of the post, it's not that we know that God didn't miraculously intercede - It's that it doesn't appear necessary for God to have interceded. Nor does saying "God did it" explain the biological complexity we observe. That's just what the designer must have wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Scott,

    There isn't any evidence for […]all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material […]

    No need for intervention either. Programmers don't come to your house an intervene to help correct spelling.

    Richard Dawkins said the following:

    The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.

    ReplyDelete
  124. That was taken from here- Dawkins starts talking near the 14:30+ mark.

    ReplyDelete
  125. T. Cook: All of the commenters here would agree, I think, that natural law can't explain what came before the universe. At this point, materialists are forced to give up; shrug their shoulders and resign themselves to the fact that some things just can't be figured out.

    The biggest problem would be the fact that we cannot travel at a speed that causes us to leave the universe. It's had a 13.75 billion year head start.

    However, If universes are pockets of space time that spring up in a greater cosmos, then we could find areas where pockets already overlap. Or we could detect the formation of new universes should they overlap ours in the process.

    This is just a few of many ways that observations could help us determine if we live in a particular type of multiverse.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Scott,

    Perhaps I should have said, we can all agree that natural law applies only as far as causality holds. We can't infer what was before the big bang because causality breaks down and we can no longer determine previous states based on physical law.

    I'm not sure if multiverse theories would change that, because we still have a question about the origin of a multiverse. Unless the multiverse explain it's own existence.

    Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe its possible to explain everything as a contained consistent system. Or it might be the case we will always find underlying explanations to our current explanations but never a final explanation. Maybe truth will be revealed.

    My point is still the same though. I don't think its a failing of science that it can't explain the existence of the universe. I showed above why I don't think God provides a reasonable explanation either.

    It may be just the nature of the universe to not admit an all encompasing explanation. Its not that scientists don't want it, its just that it seems unavailable.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Joe: There isn't any evidence for […]all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material […]

    Again, I'm suggesting that is a straw man.

    If I said that it's possible to travel from NYC to San Francisco using only a car, this does not exclude the possibility a car traveling from NYC to San Francisco being optionally pulled by a train across Iowa or over a large body of water by a ferry. Nor does it exclude the possibility that it could be levitated for 5 seconds by supernatural force so it could skip a stoplight that might have been green anyway.

    Instead, it suggests that it's not necessary for these things to occur while still traveling the entire distance.

    The possibility of God's miraculous intervention is no more a problem for any other scientific claim, which is why we keep asking for an example of a scientific fact and the criteria used to determine it meets said definition.

    Joe: No need for intervention either. Programmers don't come to your house an intervene to help correct spelling.

    So, God just programmed everything in such a way that all organisms appeared to have descended from common ancestors? Or did God pre-program the first genome to actually cause all life to descend from a common ancestor?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Scott:
    Again, I'm suggesting that is a straw man.

    So Richard Dawkins doesn't understand the theory of evolution and created a strawman that 38 Nobel laureates bought?


    Scott:
    So, God just programmed everything in such a way that all organisms appeared to have descended from common ancestors?

    It doesn't appear that way, didn't have to be God, and Dr Behe accepts "common ancestry".

    ReplyDelete
  129. T. Cook: I'm not sure if multiverse theories would change that, because we still have a question about the origin of a multiverse. Unless the multiverse explain it's own existence.

    I think we agree, in principal. However, my point is that assuming any particular phenomena, such as our visible universe, represents a boundary of such a self-contained system seems premature.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Joe: So Richard Dawkins doesn't understand the theory of evolution and created a strawman that 38 Nobel laureates bought?

    No, I'm saying you're presenting a straw man of Dawkins' position by suggesting that exclusion refers to impossibility rather than a lack of necesstiy.

    Again, It might be that an intelligent being wanted us to have exactly five fingers, rather than four, six or some other number of digits which would have naturally occurred. We'd be none the wiser. Evolution does not exclude this possibility.

    Instead it suggest it's not necessary. Nor does saying "a designer did it", explain why this particular number of digits were are present.

    Scott: So, God just programmed everything in such a way that all organisms appeared to have descended from common ancestors?

    Joe: It doesn't appear that way, didn't have to be God, and Dr Behe accepts "common ancestry".

    First, I'm asking you, not Dr. Behe.

    Second, if appearances are not deceiving, in that species do share common ancestors, then the question becomes what explains common ancestry?

    Evolutionary processes cause speciation. The question becomes why the specific species we observe, rathe than some other species. Not just why diversity, but this particular diversity, rather than some other diversity?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Scott said:

    "I think we agree, in principal. However, my point is that assuming any particular phenomena, such as our visible universe, represents a boundary of such a self-contained system seems premature."

    However, since by definition we will never get evidence from another universe the multiverse theory is dead in the water. There will never be proof of its existence.

    So what to do? Do we never try to answer the question of where we came from - God forbid. We still have minds that can make rational decisions. With the fine tuned characteristics, extreme complexity of life, and intelligent life, we can safely conclude that a higher intelligence was at work creating the universe. Some may not believe, no matter how strong the evidence. However, we should see the multiverse argument for what it is, a shallow, desperate attempt to divert our attention for the scientific facts and the logical conclusion for the existence of God. The idea of a multiverse never existed before the fine tuned constants. It has no credibility until it has any facts, which will be never.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Scott:
    No, I'm saying you're presenting a straw man of Dawkins' position by suggesting that exclusion refers to impossibility rather than a lack of necesstiy.

    Except I didn't present a strawman version and parsimony comes into play. No need for a designer when necessity and chance suffice- that is what Intelligent Design says.

    That said, YEC does not argue against speciation Scott. Speciation is ambiguous. And common ancestry can only be tested to a very limited extent.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Peter: However, since by definition we will never get evidence from another universe the multiverse theory is dead in the water. There will never be proof of its existence.

    Definitions are subject to change.

    For example, by there original definition, atoms should be indivisible as the origin of the word is rooted in the Greek a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’ Yet we now know that atoms can be divided.

    Again, if our universe is one of many expanding pockets of space time in a greater cosmos, these pockets could intersect while expanding. This would represent evidence from another universe.

    Quantum computing was founded as a test for the the many worlds interoperation of quantum mechanics.

    Peter: However, we should see the multiverse argument for what it is, a shallow, desperate attempt to divert our attention for the scientific facts and the logical conclusion for the existence of God. The idea of a multiverse never existed before the fine tuned constants. It has no credibility until it has any facts, which will be never.

    Peter,

    I realize you must believe this as part of the dogma you accept. However, this doesn't mean it's an objective appraisal of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Joe: Except I didn't present a strawman version and parsimony comes into play. No need for a designer when necessity and chance suffice- that is what Intelligent Design says.

    Joe, you're complaining that there isn't any evidence to support a claim that evolutionary theory does not make.

    Again, like all scientific theories, we cannot be 100% certain that some miraculous intervention could not take place which cannot be distinguished from a random event. Nor did we observe each species evolve over billions of years.

    This is why we keep asking for an example of a scientific fact and the criteria used to determine it meets said definition.

    […]all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material […]

    The strawman I'm referring to is represented by the words in bold.

    Some designer could have flipped a bit in a genome giving a species one feature rather than another. We can't know this didn't occur.

    Instead, evolutionary theory suggest that such intervention is not necessary. Nor does saying a designer did it explain the biological complexity we observe.

    Joe: That said, YEC does not argue against speciation Scott. Speciation is ambiguous. And common ancestry can only be tested to a very limited extent.

    YEC doesn't appear to take it's argument any more seriously either.

    Common ancestry is rigorously tested across multiple disciplines. It's part of the deep and hard to vary explanation that evolutionary theory presents.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Pastor Neal wrote:
    "As a comparison Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel are usually careful to perform their tests by setting up their experiments as equal to the original claim as possible."

    Yet Dr. Hunter performs no tests. He's completely different. IIRC, he hasn't done anything empirical since he had a thesis advisor directing him.

    "They then test their experiment quite thoroughly."

    And Dr. Hunter does not.

    "Evolutionary theory would not stand up to this kind of scrutiny."

    Yet it does every day in reality, while Dr. Hunter does nothing empirical.

    "What a travesty of the scientific method to show small scale change and assume large scale change."

    We aren't assuming, Pastor Neal, we are actively testing. Your hero here produces nothing but hot air. You are bearing false witness.

    "CH is a kind of Evolutionary MythBuster."

    Let us know when he does something besides talk, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Scott:
    Joe, you're complaining that there isn't any evidence to support a claim that evolutionary theory does not make.

    I don't think so and you cannot demonstrate that I am.

    Scott:
    Again, like all scientific theories, we cannot be 100% certain that some miraculous intervention could not take place which cannot be distinguished from a random event.

    That is the strawman, Scott.

    Scott:
    The strawman I'm referring to is represented by the words in bold.

    That is what teh theory posits- no intelligence required. Mayr went over this in "What Evolution Is".

    Scott:
    Instead, evolutionary theory suggest that such intervention is not necessary.

    Exactly- is says that but doesn't have any evidence to support the claim nor any way to test it- no hypothesis.

    Scott:
    Nor does saying a designer did it explain the biological complexity we observe.

    Geez as Dawkins stated saying a designer did it means we are looking at a totally different type of biology. Please try to follow along.

    Scott:
    Common ancestry is rigorously tested across multiple disciplines.

    It is as "tested" as common design. No math, no numbers, no science. Heck MathGrrl just got domne telling us that over on Uncommon Descent.

    There isn't any evidence in genetics nor evo-devo that demonstrates the changes required are even possible via genetic changes.

    ReplyDelete
  137. The last paragraph was utter nonsense. 1. Evolutionists believe the world arose spontaneously makes no sense--evolution does not explain or try to explain the origins of life. 2. Even if evolution were false, it is a nonsequitur to say therefore there must have been god to create the world. 3.No amount of evidence will change that conclusion, because the conclusion is theologically mandated." If by "conclusion is theologically mandated " u mean ID, yes I agree w/ you.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Joaozinho said, "Yet it does every day in reality"

    Which definition of evolution does?

    Evolution itself is not allowed to fail. Evolutionists make excuses with weasel words about various theories and mechanisms of evolution, but evolution itself is beyond question for the faithful. It is an assumed fact that is guarded better than the treasures of King Tut. It is a philosophy of interpreting the data.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Scott:
    Common ancestry is rigorously tested across multiple disciplines.

    JoeG: It is as "tested" as common design. No math, no numbers, no science. Heck MathGrrl just got domne telling us that over on Uncommon Descent.

    Some concession there! It is a bold (but accurate) admission to say there are no maths, numbers, or science behind common design.

    An accurate portrayal from a follower of the ID 'movement.' Sadly, you seem less acquainted with tests of common ancestry, which have quite a bit of math behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  140. RobertC:
    Sadly, you seem less acquainted with tests of common ancestry, which have quite a bit of math behind them.

    Like what? There isn't any math which demonstrates the number of mutations it would take to get a fully aquatic mammal from a fully terrestrial mammal.

    OTOH common design is observed and experienced with human designs.

    ReplyDelete
  141. JoeTard said...

    RobertC:
    Sadly, you seem less acquainted with tests of common ancestry, which have quite a bit of math behind them.

    Like what? There isn't any math which demonstrates the number of mutations it would take to get a fully aquatic mammal from a fully terrestrial mammal.


    Science doesn't claim to be able to know or calculate the exact number of mutations that occurred. Contrast that with the IDiots, who do claim to be able to calculate CSI to the bit level. It was hilarious watching Mathgrrl make you IDiots look like, well, idiots over that bogus claim.

    OTOH common design is observed and experienced with human designs.

    Non-sequitur, unless you are going to claim humans were the designers of all life on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  142. tardtard:
    Science doesn't claim to be able to know or calculate the exact number of mutations that occurred.

    Your position has nothing but untestable speculations based on untestable assumptions.

    tardtard:
    Contrast that with the IDiots, who do claim to be able to calculate CSI to the bit level.

    Liar.

    OTOH common design is observed and experienced with human designs.

    tardtard:
    Non-sequitur,

    Nope- it gets to the heart of cause and effect relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Joe: I don't think so and you cannot demonstrate that I am.

    Then why did you quote...

    “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    "Solely", in this context, indicates knowledge of exclusion. It assumes that we know with 100% certainly that no intelligence picked one particular outcome out of many outcomes that are equally possible.

    Not only can we not go back in time to observe every step, but if we could you could always claim that any specific random mutation could actually represent the will of an intelligent agent.

    This is not the same as saying that, given the number of observations we have, it doesn't appear necessary for the intervention of an intelligent agent to explain the biological complexity we observe. Nor is it the same as suggesting ID is a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary theory.

    Joe: Exactly- is says that but doesn't have any evidence to support the claim nor any way to test it- no hypothesis.

    Which hypothesis are we referring to again?

    Joe: Geez as Dawkins stated saying a designer did it means we are looking at a totally different type of biology. Please try to follow along.

    I was following along. The context of Dawkins' quote was creationism.

    Again, when we attempt to take the claims of *creationists* seriously, in that they are true in reality and that all observations should conform to them, we find it fails to explain what we observe. If observations did conform, we'd be looking at some other type of biology. However, an un-conceived explanation is indefensible as explanation for anything in particular, let alone the biological complexity we observe.

    Joe: It is as "tested" as common design. No math, no numbers, no science. Heck MathGrrl just got domne telling us that over on Uncommon Descent.

    No, common design is an abstract method, while common decent in evolutionary theory is about specific observed differences between species. A designer need not use the particular kind of common design we observe. Evolution must work with what already exits. A designer can exhibit foresight about common designs across entire branches of species or not even use branches at all, while evolutionary theory lacks foresight. We observe designs that are just good enough for the conditions where they are found.

    Evolutionary theory represents a hard to vary explanation of what we observe. "A designer did it" does not.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Scott said, " it doesn't appear necessary for the intervention of an intelligent agent to explain the biological complexity we observe."

    ---

    It amazes me how easily and recklessly evolutionists make totally ungrounded statements like this. Such statements have as much value as saying, "yes space travel to the Andromeda galaxy can be explained by putting the thingamabob into the whatchamacallit."

    ReplyDelete
  145. Scott, rather than gloss over what you would consider minor unanswered problems or issues with evolution, may I suggest that you take a couple of them, ponder them very deeply and ask very straight and critical questions while not allowing evolution any free passes. In real life even one seemingly insignificant gotcha can derail the biggest and greatest projects. Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Scott:
    "Solely", in this context, indicates knowledge of exclusion.

    No, it indicates that is all that is required.

    Scott:
    It assumes that we know with 100% certainly that no intelligence picked one particular outcome out of many outcomes that are equally possible.

    No, it doesn't. It just means no intelligence was required.

    Scott:
    Which hypothesis are we referring to again?

    What do you have?

    Geez as Dawkins stated saying a designer did it means we are looking at a totally different type of biology. Please try to follow along.

    Scott:
    I was following along. The context of Dawkins' quote was creationism.

    The same holds for a designer, Scott.

    Scott:
    No, common design is an abstract method, while common decent in evolutionary theory is about specific observed differences between species.

    Common design is observed and experienced. And no one knows what makes an organism what it is. Genes control traits but being human is not a trait.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Neal: Such statements have as much value as saying, "yes space travel to the Andromeda galaxy can be explained by putting the thingamabob into the whatchamacallit."

    Given that you've demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, it would come to no surprise that you'd characterize it as a "thingamabob".

    Furthermore, you've demonstrated a desire to remain ignorant about evolutionary theory, so you can keep telling yourself and others the same thing.

    We keep pointing out mischaracterizations and inaccuracies, which you fail to address or substantiate. But then, sooner or later, you bring them up again as if for the first time.

    Again, what are we to make of this behavior other than you don't understand evolutionary theory and prefer to keep it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Neal: In real life even one seemingly insignificant gotcha can derail the biggest and greatest projects.

    Neal,

    I write software for a living. As such, I'm quite aware that even the smallest discrepancy can prevent an application from performing as planned. In fact, this is one of the underlying principles of how we can know things about reality.

    Software that actually does what's expected represents a hard to vary chain of explanations. While there may be several ways to do something, entire paths still need to be adjusted accordingly to meet these variations. Things need to line up in order to prevent the entire process from derailing.

    For example, if you use AVFoundation to open a video, attempts to play it back with QTKit (Quicktime) will fail. Nor can you display a video initialized with QTKit in AVFoundation player view. The chain is hard to vary in that variation either prevents the video from playing on screen or the assumption that QTKit and AVFoundation frameworks are completely incompatible is wrong. You can't have both ways.

    Science works by developing deep and hard to vary chains of explanations for phenomena, then looking for observed examples of these chains that successfully display that same phenomena. The links of these chains also consists of separate, hard to vary chains of there own. And these links also play the same role in other chains as well. The longer the link, the more accurate it is, because you're more likely to find a part of the chain that breaks down.

    These chains already exist since they're what causes phenomena in the first place. Evidence is not scarce. The hard part is iteratively developing theories, which describe these chains, doing so at ever increasing levels of accuracy, and comparing it with observations.

    However, "God did it", doesn't represent such a chain. It's an appeal to a possibility. The supernatural is an infinitely variable chain by which nothing need line up. There is no chain, in reality, that represents supernatural causes.

    Regardless if you opened the file in AVFoundation, you could alway play it back with God. If you opened a video in QTKit, you always display it with God. Any part of a chain can be spliced with any other chain by invoking God. There need be no link in the chain in which God cannot substitute. There need be no chain at all, as God could have created everything last Thursday with the appearance of age, false memories, etc.

    This easy variability makes the supernatural a bad explanation. Of course, if you accept prophecy, then the supernatural is a great explanation for observations as you're supposedly receiving truths about reality via communication from what you conceder a trusted source - the supernatural. There is no need for hard to vary explanations because you've got the inside track. Every other means of obtaining knowledge, such as philosophy, induction, deduction, etc., is flawed.

    Of course, this ignores the problem that we must use human reasoning and problem solving to determine what represents genuine prophecy, if anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Joe,

    You're being ambiguous.

    The blind watchmaker quote uses the term "has" indicating it's what occurred in the past. Furthermore, it uses the term "solely" which represents exclusion.

    Scientific facts do not exhibit this sort of exclusion as they are not prophecy, which supposedly accounts for an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel, factors.

    Joe: No, it doesn't. It just means no intelligence was required.

    Not required is not the same as being excluded from an existing event.

    Scott: Which hypothesis are we referring to again?

    Joe: What do you have?

    If you have to ask….

    Scott: I was following along. The context of Dawkins' quote was creationism.

    Joe: The same holds for a designer, Scott.

    Dawkins point is that YEC is incompatible with the science. If God existed and took the actions claimed we'd observe something else. What that "else" represents is an un-conceived explanation, which is indefensible as an explanation for anything in particular.

    ID, on the other hand, is a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary theory.

    Joe: Common design is observed and experienced. And no one knows what makes an organism what it is.

    Just because human beings design things does not necessitate everything is designed. It's a non-sequitur. And of no one knows what makes an organism what is is, then why do you think genome front loading is a viable theory?

    Joe: Genes control traits but being human is not a trait.

    Which means what exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Tedford the Idiot said...

    Scott said, " it doesn't appear necessary for the intervention of an intelligent agent to explain the biological complexity we observe."

    ---

    It amazes me how easily and recklessly evolutionists make totally ungrounded statements like this. Such statements have as much value as saying, "yes space travel to the Andromeda galaxy can be explained by putting the thingamabob into the whatchamacallit."


    It's more like NASA says "we can fly a deep space probe powered by a SNAP reactor to Neptune using a gravity assisted orbit".

    Then some ignorant as dirt pastor goes "NUH UH! ...oh, and what's a space probe? What's a SNAP reactor? What's a gravity assisted orbit? What's Neptune?"

    ReplyDelete
  151. Scott:
    The blind watchmaker quote uses the term "has" indicating it's what occurred in the past. Furthermore, it uses the term "solely" which represents exclusion.

    And that is exactly correct- that is according to Darwin, Dawkins, mayr, et al.

    Scott:
    Not required is not the same as being excluded from an existing event.

    Take it up with the evolutionary high priests then.

    What do you have?

    Scott:
    If you have to ask….

    I ask because I have never seen one that suppprts your position.

    Scott:
    Dawkins point is that YEC is incompatible with the science.

    No it isn't.

    Scott:
    If God existed and took the actions claimed we'd observe something else.

    That doesn't make any sense.

    Scott:
    ID, on the other hand, is a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary theory.

    Actually evolutionary theory is a convoluted pile of crap.

    Scott:
    Just because human beings design things does not necessitate everything is designed.

    Yes, I know. What's your point?

    Scott:
    And of no one knows what makes an organism what is is, then why do you think genome front loading is a viable theory?

    I don't think genome front loading is a viable theory. Software controls the show- genomes are hardware designed to carry out instructions. And until someone can answer the question of what makes an organism what it is, UCD is untestable- designed or not.

    Genes control traits but being human is not a trait.

    Scott:
    Which means what exactly?

    Means we are not the sum of our genes, ie the sum of our genome.

    ReplyDelete
  152. tardtard:
    It's more like NASA says "we can fly a deep space probe powered by a SNAP reactor to Neptune using a gravity assisted orbit".

    But Neptune isn't deep space...

    ReplyDelete
  153. Scott:
    We observe designs that are just good enough for the conditions where they are found.

    We observe them and your position cannot explain their existence, scientifically.

    Scott:
    Evolutionary theory represents a hard to vary explanation of what we observe.

    Yet is varies all the time. And there isn't any way to test it.

    ReplyDelete
  154. JoeTard said...

    But Neptune isn't deep space...


    NASA considers any probe that travels beyond the Earth / Moon system to be a deep space probe you moron.

    Deep Space Probes

    Joe, what is at 550 Main St. in Keene NH? You said you could be found there but it's just a parking lot.

    You're a pathological liar Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  155. tardtard:
    NASA considers any probe that travels beyond the Earth / Moon system to be a deep space probe

    If it's in our solar system it ain't in deep space.

    Pretty simple concept actually...

    ReplyDelete
  156. It would be nice if this blog be made into a Joe G-free zone. Joe has enough opportunities elsewhere to endlessly repeat the same deranged lies, insults and threats. Cornelius, please give us a break from this moron.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Joaozinho said, "Yet it does every day in reality"

    Pastor Neal:
    "Which definition of evolution does?"

    For example, all those that predict common descent. Every time anyone (usually a molecular geneticist) sequences something new it is run against the database.

    "Evolution itself is not allowed to fail."

    The data support it. That's why Dr. Hunter produces zero data, while you make imbecilic comparisons to people who do produce data.

    "Evolutionists make excuses with weasel words about various theories and mechanisms of evolution, but evolution itself is beyond question for the faithful. It is an assumed fact that is guarded better than the treasures of King Tut. It is a philosophy of interpreting the data."

    Nope. It's about predicting the data before we get them, something Dr. Hunter and you lack the faith to do. That's why you lie and pretend that science is only looking back and interpreting.

    ReplyDelete
  158. It would be nice if this blog be made into a evotard-free zone. EvoTards, like troy, thorton, Pedant, RobertC, Scott, etc., have enough opportunities elsewhere to endlessly repeat the same deranged lies, insults and threats. Cornelius, please give us a break from these morons.

    Think of the progress that could be made if we didn't have to keep correcting these pathetic failures.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Joe G, why did you challenge people to meet you at your place then give out a fictitious address?

    Doesn't seem too brave to me Good Sir Robin.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Scott: We observe designs that are just good enough for the conditions where they are found.

    Joe: We observe them and your position cannot explain their existence, scientifically.

    My position? You keep misrepresenting my position.

    Evolutionary theory explains the progression of biological complexity from the first replicating form of life.

    Again, it's unclear where we disagree as I can't make heads or tails of your position.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Scott: The blind watchmaker quote uses the term "has" indicating it's what occurred in the past. Furthermore, it uses the term "solely" which represents exclusion.

    Joe: And that is exactly correct- that is according to Darwin, Dawkins, mayr, et al.

    You mean according to Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas, right? After all, they're the source of your quote.

    Again, evolution theory doesn't claim to know that God couldn't have intervened anymore that geology, chemistry, etc. Instead, it suggests that such intervention doesn't appear necessary given our current observations.

    Nor do we default to a designer to fill in any of the gaps.

    Scott: if you have to ask [which theory]

    Joe: I ask because I have never seen one that suppprts your position.

    Since you keep presenting a straw man, this should come as no surprise.

    Scott: Dawkins point is that YEC is incompatible with the science.

    Joe: No it isn't.

    It's a scientific fact that the earth billions of years old, rather than less than 10,000. Homo sapiens go as far back as nearly 200,000 years. This conflicts with what is commonly defined as YEC.

    Unless we hold different definitions for scientific fact and YEC, this seems rather clear. Of course, you're already presenting a straw man in regards to evolutionary theory, so this wouldn't come as much of a surprise either.

    Nor can I get an example of a scientific fact out of Cornelius. Go figure.

    Joe: That doesn't make any sense.

    Agreed. Attempts to take YEC seriously fail given what we observe.

    Scott: ID, on the other hand, is a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Joe: Actually evolutionary theory is a convoluted pile of crap.

    ID, is a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary theory in the way that solipsism is a convoluted elaboration of reality, in the way that the Inquisition's implied theory of planetary motion was an convoluted elaboration of heliocentrism, etc.

    They present a theory that is defined via another theory it faithfully mimics, but is supposedly false. They fail to explanation the phenomena in question.

    Joe: Yes, I know. What's your point?

    You know? You could fooled me.

    Joe: I don't think genome front loading is a viable theory. Software controls the show- genomes are hardware designed to carry out instructions. And until someone can answer the question of what makes an organism what it is, UCD is untestable- designed or not.

    If the genome wasn't front-loaded with instructions then exactly how does the genome obtain instruction in the first place?

    Furthermore, the genome doesn't receive input about the environment in which it's organism exists. What kind of food supply is available, what kind of predators must it compete with. What kind of weather conditions must it survive in.

    In the absence of this input, it's unclear how these instructions would choose what beneficial mutations to select.

    Joe: Means we are not the sum of our genes, ie the sum of our genome.

    Did I suggest otherwise? Clearly, human beings are shaped by their experiences, their environment, the foods they eat, etc.

    Again, what's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  163. Again, it's unclear where we disagree as I can't make heads or tails of your position.

    His position is that he is right and you are wrong. If he happens to make a point that you agree with, then by definition that point is wrong because you agree with it, so he must change it.

    Start arguing against evolution and he might make a cursory attempt to actually understand it enough to prove you wrong. That would be fun to see.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Well, Cornelius, I managed to find some time to read Carroll's piece, and was left pretty much in the same place. I read a bit more here and there and realised that I was misusing the term "fine-tuning". The term itself seems to refer only to the existence of finely-tuned parameters, but I thought it to refer always to the argument from fine-tuning for "design" (or whatever).

    Apart from that, and some interesting discussion on cosmology, I still think the argument is utter Panglossianism. It doesn't matter if you are open to the possibility that the universe may have been tuned for things other than life. That approaches to "pan-Panglossianism". "The universe was made the way it is, in order to be the way it is".

    ReplyDelete
  165. JoeG:
    Means we are not the sum of our genes, ie the sum of our genome.

    Wow! We are more than the additive interaction of our genes. Revolution in biology! Now, try to explain that to the silly persons who ask for "numbers of mutations for terrestrial mammals to become fully aquatic mammals", and hardly know what kind of mutations exist are what are their many possible effects.

    Your phenotype at time t is the result of the interaction between your genotype, the environment, and your phenotype at time t-1.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Geoxus:
    Your phenotype at time t is the result of the interaction between your genotype, the environment, and your phenotype at time t-1.

    And your evidence for that is?

    ReplyDelete
  167. Scott:
    My position? You keep misrepresenting my position.

    So you say yet cannot provide evidence for.

    I guess yur position is different from Dawkins, Mayr, Coyne, Myer, et al.

    Scott:
    Evolutionary theory explains the progression of biological complexity from the first replicating form of life.

    If it does "explain" it it does so without scientific data.

    ReplyDelete
  168. And that is exactly correct- that is according to Darwin, Dawkins, mayr, et al.

    Scott:
    You mean according to Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas, right? After all, they're the source of your quote.

    They got it from Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr, Coyne, et al.

    Do the research. It isn't a secret.

    Scott:
    Since you keep presenting a straw man, this should come as no surprise.

    I am not presenting a strawman.

    And Scott ID persists, in part, because of the tiotal failure of your position to support its claims.

    Scott:
    If the genome wasn't front-loaded with instructions then exactly how does the genome obtain instruction in the first place?

    The CELL is loaded with the software. The genome gets its instructions from that.

    Scott:
    Furthermore, the genome doesn't receive input about the environment in which it's organism exists.

    Yes it does. The cell gets it and then relays it to the genome.

    Dr Spetner called it "built-in responses to environmental cues".

    ReplyDelete
  169. tardtad:
    Joe G, why did you challenge people to meet you at your place then give out a fictitious address?

    I never challenged anyone to meet me at my place.

    You are a liar- a pathological liar at that.

    ReplyDelete
  170. JoeTard said...

    T:Joe G, why did you challenge people to meet you at your place then give out a fictitious address?

    I never challenged anyone to meet me at my place.


    Yes you did Internet tough guy.

    Joe G: "If you want to visit me I can be found at 550 Main St in Keene, NH. Just ask for Joe G."

    link

    550 Main in Keene is a parking lot between two commercial establishments. You can easily check it on Google Maps / Earth Earth.

    Why do you hang out in a parking lot, and who specifically should we "ask for Joe G" to?

    You're a pathological liar Joe. You got busted big time with this lie.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Joe G:

    The CELL is loaded with the software. The genome gets its instructions from that.

    Then explain this: if you take a cell of species A and replace the cell's genome with that of species B, the phenotype of species B develops.

    What happened to the "software", moron?

    ReplyDelete
  172. I never challenged anyone to meet me at my place.

    tardtard:
    Yes you did Internet tough guy.

    No I did not. You are a liar.


    I NEVER said nor implied 550 main st keene, nh was my place.

    You are a lying moron.

    ReplyDelete
  173. troy boy the dumbass:
    Then explain this: if you take a cell of species A and replace the cell's genome with that of species B, the phenotype of species B develops.

    If I take a fish cell and replace it with the genome of a human, a human will not develop.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Joe: They got it from Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr, Coyne, et al.

    Joe: I am not presenting a strawman.

    Then you should't have any problem providing a reference to their original claim. Right?

    Joe: And Scott ID persists, in part, because of the tiotal failure of your position to support its claims.

    ID represents an concrete example of the claim that there exists a boundary where that human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass This boundary represents a variant of solipsism in that it's drawn at some point beyond our mind/brain. But the boundary exists none the less.

    For example, the inquisition drew the line at an explanation for the night sky. One could still draw such a boundary by claiming the earth exists in a giant planetarium that merely presents an elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system. This includes reflecting photons, laser beams and radio waves *as if* an external solar system exists. Spacecraft could be returned with manufactured telemetry, less just the right amount of fuel and even return astronauts with manufactured memories of collecting fake rock samples.

    We cannot know an intelligent designer exists that has this ability and would choose to simulate *this* solar system. But this theory doesn't explain why the planetarium would simulate *this* particular solar system. Where does the data model come from that generate the paths of supposedly non-existent planets? What is the planetarium simulating?

    Joe: The CELL is loaded with the software. The genome gets its instructions from that.

    So where does this software reside in the cell? What format does it exist in? What medium is used to store it?

    Scott: Furthermore, the genome doesn't receive input about the environment in which it's organism exists. What kind of food supply is available, what kind of predators must it compete with. What kind of weather conditions must it survive in.

    Joe: Yes it does. The cell gets it and then relays it to the genome. Dr Spetner called it "built-in responses to environmental cues".

    Gets "It?" It's unclear what information you're referring to or how it would enable the cell to make the necessary determination as to which mutations are appropriate.

    Again, this appears to be a convoluted elaboration of evolutionary theory. The designer's actions are defined in terms of the competing theory, which it faithfully mimics, yet is supposedly false. Rater than actually explain phenomena, it's claims are limited to reassigning it to some other cause.

    Take solipsism, for example, which claims that we cannot know if anything exist outside of our mind. This is a claim of a boundary where human reasoning cannot pass.

    However, solipsism fails to explain why object-like facets of my internal self would obey laws of physics-like facets of my self. It fails to explain why there are conscious being-like facets of myself that disagree with me on solipsism or how physicists-like facets of myself discovery new laws of physics-like facets of myself despite the fact that I can't do the math.

    As such, I do not reject Solipsism merely because it's non-intuitive, it's a convoluted elaboration of realism. It's indefensible as an explanation of what we observe. We need not be eternally undecided about Solipsism because it's exhibits the properties of a bad explanation, which we discard.

    ID has no explanation as to *why* a designer would "choose" the specific complexity we observe, rather than some other complexity. That's just what the designer must have wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Joe: If I take a fish cell and replace it with the genome of a human, a human will not develop.

    So, tell us, Joe. What does develop? Do you get a fish? Do you get anything at all?

    Venter had to take several steps to transplant DNA into a closely related species of bacteria. Much of this was related to preventing the cell from rejecting the DNA due to the way it was assembled (via yeast) and transplanted. This rejection mechanism ultimately represents an expression of the native DNA.

    Until this process was refined, Venter could not take genome of one species of bacteria and replace it with another, either. This took years to accomplish.

    ReplyDelete
  176. If I take a fish cell and replace it with the genome of a human, a human will not develop.

    Scott:
    So, tell us, Joe. What does develop? Do you get a fish? Do you get anything at all?

    Nothing fully develops.

    What's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  177. I am not presenting a strawman.

    Scott:
    Then you should't have any problem providing a reference to their original claim. Right?

    You made the claim I am presenting a strawman. You need to support it.

    And Scott ID persists, in part, because of the tiotal failure of your position to support its claims.

    Scott:
    ID represents an concrete example of the claim that there exists a boundary where that human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.

    Nonsense. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships and you cannot change that fact.

    The CELL is loaded with the software. The genome gets its instructions from that.

    Scott:
    So where does this software reside in the cell? What format does it exist in? What medium is used to store it?

    Don't know. Don't know. The cell itself is the medium.

    Joe: Yes it does. The cell gets it and then relays it to the genome. Dr Spetner called it "built-in responses to environmental cues".

    Scott:
    Gets "It?"

    Receives it.


    Scott:
    It's unclear what information you're referring to or how it would enable the cell to make the necessary determination as to which mutations are appropriate.

    Information on the organism's environment, including food source. This information is passed on to the cells. The cells communicate. That is biology 101.

    Scott:
    ID has no explanation as to *why* a designer would "choose" the specific complexity we observe, rather than some other complexity.

    ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer.

    We don't know the mind of the designers of Stonehenge yet we can still identify that it is an artifact, which affects the investigation, and then go from there.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Scott

    So where does this software reside in the cell? What format does it exist in? What medium is used to store it?
    ---

    You are a programmer, right?

    Do you have any ideas?

    There are clues.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Joe: You made the claim I am presenting a strawman. You need to support it.

    Already done. Pointed out that your quote did not come from Dawkins, et all.

    Scott: ID represents an concrete example of the claim that there exists a boundary where that human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.

    Joe: Nonsense. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships and you cannot change that fact.

    The cause (the designer) has effects (left "footprints") we can use to explain the specific biological complexity we observe via human reasoning and problem solving?

    For example, over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. What effects of the designer can we observe which allow us to explain this observation?

    Scott: So where does this software reside in the cell? What format does it exist in? What medium is used to store it?

    Joe: Don't know. Don't know. The cell itself is the medium.

    Are you saying you don't have any empirical evidence of this software?

    Joe: Receives it.

    It? What exactly is this "it" which the genome receives?

    Joe: Information on the organism's environment, including food source. This information is passed on to the cells. The cells communicate. That is biology 101.

    The communication of specific food sources from a cell to it's genome is biology 101?

    Again, it's unclear how a cell can reverse engineer what specific kind of food was consumed, it's current supply, what other sources are available, what other species are competing for that supply, what their short and long term availability will be due to changing weather, natural disasters, etc.

    Joe: ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer.

    Which tells us what, exactly, about the complexity we observe? That you have "scientific precedence" for your particular religious belief?

    Scott: So where does this software reside in the cell? What format does it exist in? What medium is used to store it?
    ---

    Joe: You are a programmer, right? Do you have any ideas? There are clues.

    Clues? What doesn't represent computation?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Scott:
    Already done. Pointed out that your quote did not come from Dawkins, et all.

    It just came from their words. Mayr said it in "What Evolution is" (page 122 I think) teleology not allowd. Darwin said it is letters. Dawkins has said it.

    The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships and you cannot change that fact.

    Scott:
    The cause (the designer) has effects (left "footprints") we can use to explain the specific biological complexity we observe via human reasoning and problem solving?

    Exactly.

    Scott:
    For example, over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct.

    Non-sequitur.

    Scott:
    Are you saying you don't have any empirical evidence of this software?

    Plenty of evidence-> transcription and translation, overlapping genes, alternative gene splicing, etc.

    Receives it.

    Scott:
    It? What exactly is this "it" which the genome receives?

    Signals from the environment. The cell receives it and that information is sent to the genome.

    Scott:
    The communication of specific food sources from a cell to it's genome is biology 101?

    Cellular communication is biology 101. And we know that the environment can affect genomes.


    Scott:
    Again, it's unclear how a cell can reverse engineer what specific kind of food was consumed, it's current supply, what other sources are available, what other species are competing for that supply, what their short and long term availability will be due to changing weather, natural disasters, etc.

    Strawman.

    ID is about the DESIGN, not the designer.

    Scott:
    Which tells us what, exactly, about the complexity we observe?

    1- It tells me that you don't know what you are talking about

    2- It tells us we are looking at a totally different type of biology, just as Dawkins said.

    Scott:
    That you have "scientific precedence" for your particular religious belief?

    What particular religious belief would that be? I was unaware I had one.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Thorton:
    NASA considers any probe that travels beyond the Earth / Moon system to be a deep space probe

    JoeG:
    If it's in our solar system it ain't in deep space.
    Pretty simple concept actually...

    Hey toughguy, google Deep Space Probe 1 and 2 for me. Tell me where they went. You've been watching too much Star Trek DSN or something.

    Secondly, inter-species nuclear transfer, when successful results in progeny matching the host genome-not some vital essence leaking in from the environment or host cell.

    Not sure what the developmental blocks in the other cases do to make a point for you!

    ReplyDelete
  182. Joe: It just came from their words. Mayr said it in "What Evolution is" (page 122 I think) teleology not allowd. Darwin said it is letters. Dawkins has said it.

    Another wide spread erroneous view of natural selection must also be refuted: Selection is not teleological (goal-directed). Indeed how could an elimination process be teleological? Selection does not have a long term goal. It is a process repeated anew in every generation. The frequency of extinction of evolutionary lineages, as well as their frequent changes in direction, is inconstant with the mistaken claim that selection is a teleological process. Also, there is no known genetic mechanism that could produce goal-directed evolutionary processes. Orthogenesis and other proposed teleological processes have been thoroughly refuted.

    To say it in other words, evolution is not deterministic. The evolutionary process consist of a large number of interactions. Different genotypes within a single population may respond differently to the same change in the environment. These changes, in turn, are unpredictable, particularly when caused by the arrival at a locality of a new predator or competitor. Survival during mass extinctions may be strongly effected by chance.


    Having a teleological meaning as well, Mayr is clarifying what is meant by the term "selection" in the context of natural selection.

    Again, this in no way excludes miraculous interventions which alter what could have occurred naturally in a way that cannot be detected: I.E. causing a mutation that ultimately resulted in five fingers, rather than four, six or some other number of digits, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Scott: The cause (the designer) has effects (left "footprints") we can use to explain the specific biological complexity we observe via human reasoning and problem solving?

    Joe: Exactly

    Scott: For example, over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct. What effects of the designer can we observe which allow us to explain this observation?

    Joe: Non-sequitur.

    So, we can't explain this observation using human reasoning an problem solving? Please make up your mind.

    Scott: Are you saying you don't have any empirical evidence of this software?

    Joe: Plenty of evidence-> transcription and translation, overlapping genes, alternative gene splicing, etc.

    Are you suggesting that chemical transcription represents computation?

    ReplyDelete
  184. Scott: It? What exactly is this "it" which the genome receives?

    Joe: Signals from the environment. The cell receives it and that information is sent to the genome.

    The cell receives "it?" Again, what is this "it" you're referring to?

    Joe: Cellular communication is biology 101. And we know that the environment can affect genomes.

    That cellular communication includes the details necessary to make contingent speciation mutations is absent from biology 101.

    Furthermore, If the cells of a particular species are pre-programed to respond to particular inputs in a particular way, then why would mutations occur in some cells but not others? Why would the same "signals" not result in the same mutations in every cell across the entire species under the same conditions?

    Scott: Again, it's unclear how a cell can reverse engineer what specific kind of food was consumed, it's current supply, what other sources are available, what other species are competing for that supply, what their short and long term availability will be due to changing weather, natural disasters, etc.

    Joe: Strawman.

    Then, by all means, please tell us what information does the cell receive and how it factors into what mutations should be made to the genome?

    Scott: Which tells us what, exactly, about the complexity we observe?

    Joe: 1- It tells me that you don't know what you are talking about

    Unbiased ad-hominid.

    Joe: 2- It tells us we are looking at a totally different type of biology, just as Dawkins said.

    First, I've already illustrated how this was taken out of context.

    Second, this is precisely what I mean by convoluted elaboration. When I ask what, exactly, "design" tells us about the biological complexity we observe, you have no answer. It's something, anything, other than modern evolutionary biology.

    It says nothing in particular other than the negation of an existing, concrete theory. This is an un-conceived explanation, which is indefinable as an explanation of anything in particular, let alone the biological complexity we observe.

    It's a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary biology.

    Scott: Which tells us what, exactly, about the complexity we observe? That you have "scientific precedence" for your particular religious belief?

    Joe: What particular religious belief would that be? I was unaware I had one.

    Then what does it tell us? if anything?

    ReplyDelete
  185. Correction:

    This is an un-conceived explanation, which is indefensible as an explanation of anything in particular, let alone the biological complexity we observe.

    ReplyDelete
  186. RobertC:
    Secondly, inter-species nuclear transfer, when successful results in progeny matching the host genome-not some vital essence leaking in from the environment or host cell.

    It is only successful between interbreeding organisms- ie organisms that can successfully mate. And that means it wasn't inter-species and proves our definition of "species" is ambiguous at best.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Mayr:
    Also, there is no known genetic mechanism that could produce goal-directed evolutionary processes. Orthogenesis and other proposed teleological processes have been thoroughly refuted.

    Way to ignore that part Scott.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Non-sequitur.

    Scott:
    So, we can't explain this observation using human reasoning an problem solving? Please make up your mind.

    BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY- You were asking about biological complexity and the you moved the goalposts to extinction. You have serious issues and should seek help.

    Plenty of evidence-> transcription and translation, overlapping genes, alternative gene splicing, etc.

    Scott:
    Are you suggesting that chemical transcription represents computation?

    Nope. I am saying the processes I wrote down are directed by software.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Signals from the environment. The cell receives it and that information is sent to the genome.

    Scott:
    The cell receives "it?" Again, what is this "it" you're referring to?

    Signals from the environment, just as I said.

    Scott:
    That cellular communication includes the details necessary to make contingent speciation mutations is absent from biology 101.

    Strawman.

    Scott:
    Then, by all means, please tell us what information does the cell receive and how it factors into what mutations should be made to the genome?

    Information from the environment andthat may trigger "built-in responses to environmental cues" just as Dr Spetner wrote back in 1997.

    It tells us we are looking at a totally different type of biology, just as Dawkins said.

    Scot:
    First, I've already illustrated how this was taken out of context.

    You only think you did. Dawkins said it and I did not take it out of context.

    Scott:
    When I ask what, exactly, "design" tells us about the biological complexity we observe, you have no answer.

    Your position doesn't have anything, Scott. Not one piece of evidence for constructing useful multi-part systems. Nothing.

    And I take it that bothers you.

    ReplyDelete
  190. RobertC:
    Hey toughguy, google Deep Space Probe 1 and 2 for me.

    Those are just names Robert. It does not designate what they were meant for.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Joe G,

    Good to see you back again Joe.

    It is nice to hear another sane voice every once and a while here.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  192. Scott: So, we can't explain this observation using human reasoning an problem solving? Please make up your mind.

    Joe: BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY- You were asking about biological complexity and the you moved the goalposts to extinction. You have serious issues and should seek help.

    The existence of any form of abstract biological complexity is not the same as the specific, concrete biological complexity we observe.

    Apparently, you're trying to answer some other question that is merely tangential to evolutionary theory as extinction changes the landscape of the biological complexity we observe. This is, in part, what evolutionary theory addresses.

    Or are you denying that species have come and gone?

    Furthermore, if you're a designer, what you choose to leave out is just as important as what you choose to include. If one species goes extinct, it cannot evolve into some other species under the same conditions. This effects the speculation we do observe

    For example, human beings exist in the less that 2% of all species that have yet to go extinct. Was this the result of natural, undirected processes or was it the intentional result of an intelligent agent?

    ReplyDelete
  193. Joe,

    Are you suggesting that the cell merely injects generic, potentially beneficial mutations into the genome of a species based on vague signals it receives? And, depending on the actual details of the environment, that mutation may or may not be actually beneficial?

    ReplyDelete
  194. -- reposting --


    Joe: Way to ignore that part Scott.

    Also, there is no known genetic mechanism that could produce goal-directed evolutionary processes.

    Which is referring to the absence of known genetic mechanisms that exhibit goal-directed processes. There may be unknown processes which we're unaware of.

    Nor is this a blanket statement regarding any sort of intervention on the part of an intelligent agent at any part of the process in the past.

    Orthogenesis and other proposed teleological processes have been thoroughly refuted.

    Which, again, is referring to proposed, known to exist teleological processes, such as Orthogenesis, etc. However, an un-conceived (non-proposed) explanation is indefensible for anything in particular, let alone the specific biological complexity we observe.

    Neither of which represent claims of exclusion for un-concieved events or processes that occurred in the past.

    Joe: Nope. I am saying the processes I wrote down are directed by software.

    If chemical reactions do not represent computation, then where does this computation occur? Furthermore, this computation would requires it's own set of storage, instructions, etc. Where do they reside in the cell?

    ReplyDelete
  195. -- reposting - part 2 --
    Joe: Signals from the environment, just as I said.
    When it comes to information processing, If you don't record it, you can't report.

    If you don't have access to the necessary information, then you can't make decisions that would require that information. Of course, you haven't told us what decisions are made about modifying the genome, let alone what information would be required to make them in the first place. You've explained nothing.

    Scott: That cellular communication includes the details necessary to make contingent speciation mutations is absent from biology 101.

    Joe: Strawman.

    So, the software in the cell doesn't effect speciation in a way that is contingent on the environment, the existence of other competing species, etc? But you just staid that the software gets signals from the environment? What does it do with this information if not make contingent speciation changes?

    Again, by all means, please tell us what details in this communication and what do the changes effect?

    ReplyDelete
  196. -- reposting - part 3 --

    Joe: Information from the environment andthat may trigger "built-in responses to environmental cues" just as Dr Spetner wrote back in 1997.

    Then please provide a reference to or summary of this responses and or trigers.

    Joe: You only think you did. Dawkins said it and I did not take it out of context.

    Then please enlighten us as to how the concrete biological complexity we observe would be different?

    Scott: When I ask what, exactly, "design" tells us about the biological complexity we observe, you have no answer.

    Joe: Your position doesn't have anything, Scott. Not one piece of evidence for constructing useful multi-part systems. Nothing.

    That's not an answer Joe. That's an attempt to avoid the question. Furthermore, we have plenty of evidence for the construction of multi part systems. You simply do not accept it.

    ReplyDelete