Thursday, September 8, 2011

More Insertion Site Preferences: A Reminder of Evolutionists Having it both Ways

New research is showing that P transposable elements have some interesting insertion site hotspots. Specifically, in the fly genome these transposons often show up in the promoter region of a few hundred seemingly unrelated genes. One common theme, however, is that many of the P element target sites serve as starting points for the DNA replication process that creates a duplicate copy of the genome prior to cell division. So there is a correlation, in this case, between the transposon insertion site preference and DNA replication. This finding has implications for how the P elements spread through a population. And it is yet another indication of, in contrast to evolution’s it’s-all-just-a-random-fluke view, how much really goes on under the hood. But this new twist on insertion site preferences also reminds us of evolution’s pretzel logic.

One way evolutionists try to avoid the many problems with their theory is to compare evolution with an alternative. Elliott Sober explains this in his book Evidence and Evolution, and you can see examples here, here and here.

The idea is to show how much more likely common descent is than the alternative. But in making this comparison, what evidence does Sober and the evolutionists use, and what alternative do they use?

Would you be shocked to learn that Sober and the evolutionists are highly selective? They avoid the many evidences that contradict common ancestry. And they use a strawman alternative which, for example, has no common mechanisms.

Not surprisingly the verdict of this kangaroo court is that common descent is a no-brainer—it is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

When challenged evolutionists say their strawman allows for no common mechanisms because—notwithstanding findings such as the transposon insertion site preferences discussed above—we don’t have evidence for common mechanisms on such a massive level.

True enough but if evidence of mechanisms were required then common ancestry would have been ruled out as well. In fact, evolutionists repeatedly explain that their proof does not entail explanations of exactly how common ancestry is supposed to have worked. The details, for the purposes of the proof, are not required. Regardless of the mechanics, evolutionists say common descent can be evaluated against the evidence, and compared to the alternative. But when it comes to hypothesizing an alternative, only known, fully established, mechanisms are allowed.

It is another example of the evolutionist’s pretzel logic. In order to prove common descent he has it both ways. The many contradictions to common descent are ignored, and a strawman alternative serves as the foil.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

62 comments:

  1. Cornelius,

    And they use a strawman alternative which, for example, has no common mechanisms.

    Not surprisingly the verdict of this kangaroo court is that common descent is a no-brainer—it is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    When challenged evolutionists say their strawman allows for no common mechanisms because—notwithstanding findings such as the transposon insertion site preferences discussed above—we don’t have evidence for common mechanisms on such a massive level.

    True enough but if evidence of mechanisms were required then common ancestry would have been ruled out as well. In fact, evolutionists repeatedly explain that their proof does not entail explanations of exactly how common ancestry is supposed to have worked.


    Who said this and when?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alert!!!!

    Multiple incompetent opinions to follow by bloggers that know absolutely nothing of science. Stay tuned for their hilarious, and vacuous statements.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, like opinions from people who can't tell the difference between "bloggers" and "commenters".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter Wadeck,

    What exactly are your scientific credentials? And how much of a scientist is Cornelius G. Hunter?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter

    Do you even try to understand what's being discussed, or do you just assume that all points not raised by CH are automatically invalid? Your comments thus far suggest the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As billed,

    No credentials in this lot of sorry people who make blog entries on a subject they are not professionally qualified in, and who delusionally expect people to believe their blog entries are more informed then the host.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's a free country, Wadeck, and nobody gives a pin for what you believe.

    But, you could show good faith, if you have any, by providing your own credentials. You have been asked, politely, already.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I bow before your Google skills, oleg. Maybe Mr Wadeck has obtained a doctorate in science since 2003?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Typical obfuscation of evolutionists. I never claimed to have more expertise than CH. But logic is not a strong point of the critics. I don't see Joe here?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  10. Peter Wadeck said...

    As billed,

    No credentials in this lot of sorry people who make blog entries on a subject they are not professionally qualified in, and who delusionally expect people to believe their blog entries are more informed then the host.

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

    And your professional qualifications are?

    You obviously didn't think before you spoke. You didn't specify whether the "subject" is a scientific one or a theological one. Since you think that the people who comment here, or at least the people who comment against what Cornelius says, aren't professionally qualified to speak on the "subject", I would think that you would have no problem with labeling the "subject" as either scientific or theological and with revealing your professional qualifications, and supporting evidence of your professional qualifications, in either of those areas of study.

    If you label the "subject" as theological, you'll be admitting that Cornelius's post is not scientific, and if you label it as scientific, let's see your verifiable professional qualifications in science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter Wadeck said...

    Typical obfuscation of evolutionists. I never claimed to have more expertise than CH. But logic is not a strong point of the critics. I don't see Joe here?


    So you don't have any expertise in the biological sciences. You don't have the chops to evaluate anyone else's inputs. All your criticism is just the usual Creationist blustering and should be rejected out of hand.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter Wadeck said...

    Alert!!!!

    Multiple incompetent opinions to follow by bloggers that know absolutely nothing of science. Stay tuned for their hilarious, and vacuous statements.

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

    For you to say that you must think that you know something of science, and especially evolutionary science since that is the usual focal point here. In that case, will you please tell me what you think are the scientific details regarding the evolution/diversification of every species that has ever lived on the Earth?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would like to learn from our distinguished panel of creationists how the referenced research in Dr Hunter's OP:

    Drosophila P elements preferentially transpose to replication origins

    falsifies evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  14. CH said, "But when it comes to hypothesizing an alternative, only known, fully established, mechanisms are allowed."

    --
    Yes, a very good observation. Thanks for the good article.

    --

    So evolutionist friends, do you see your double standard?

    Evolutionists are also under the false and cowardly assumption that one has to provide an alternative in order to be skeptical or falsify their theory. Where did that come from? Only in the wacky world of evolutionists.

    Another tidbit for evolutionists to chew on:

    If purely "natural" explanations are the only ones allowed in science, where does that put mathematics? I think that all would agree that mathematics should be allowed in scientific arguments... but is mathematics purely "natural"?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tedford, press your gums on this:

    If purely "natural" explanations are the only ones allowed in science, where does that put language? I think that all would agree that language should be allowed in scientific arguments... but is language purely "natural"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Evolutionists are also under the false and cowardly assumption that one has to provide an alternative in order to be skeptical or falsify their theory. Where did that come from?

    The history of science. Please provide an example of a scientific hypothesis that doesn't have an alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peter,

    The problem is that Cornelius arguments hinge not merely on observations but how those observations are extrapolated.

    Specifically, Cornelius claims that his position is somehow more "neutral", but hasn't explained how this is even possible. Furthermore he's clearly refused to disclose details of his position, despite having been directly asked several times to do so.

    So, it's unclear that one must be an expert on biology to actually point out flaws in Cornelius' arguments.

    To use this post as an example…

    CH: This finding has implications for how the P elements spread through a population. And it is yet another indication of, in contrast to evolution’s it’s-all-just-a-random-fluke view, how much really goes on under the hood.

    Exactly what Cornelius means by "Implications" isn unclear. "How much really goes on under the hood" seems to be an argument from incredulity based on complexity. One doesn't need to be an expert on biology to realize that incredulity isn't an argument.

    Furthermore…

    CH: The idea is to show how much more likely common descent is than the alternative.

    This is the context of his argument. He then goes on to attempt to support this argument in his post.

    However, this is related to the philosophy of science, rather than facts about biology. One doesn't need to be a molecular biologist or organic chemist to address these issues.

    He continues…

    CH: But in making this comparison, what evidence does Sober and the evolutionists use, and what alternative do they use?

    CH: Would you be shocked to learn that Sober and the evolutionists are highly selective? They avoid the many evidences that contradict common ancestry. And they use a strawman alternative which, for example, has no common mechanisms.

    But, again, these "evidences" that "evolutionists" supposedly avoid are, again, based on particular assumptions about how observations are extrapolated. And we regularly catch Cornelius extrapolating observations in the framework of an designer and doing so completely undisclosed. This is the mindset behind comments such as "Evolution is scientifically unlikely", etc.

    In fact, I'd suggest that this is the sort of smuggled theistic framework that underlies Cornelius' arguments. He does not disclose it because he knows his target audience shares this framework. Nor would he want to because it would expose it to unnecessary criticism.

    On one had, Cornelius claims to be more neutral. But on the other hand, he complains that "evolutionists" are guilty of doing just this. Furthermore, when pressed as to how it's even possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into a explanatory framework, he simply does not reply.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter

    Putting the inconsistency of your own comment aside for the moment, allow me to point out that the mistakes that CH makes are such fundamental logical mistakes that no formal scientific training is even necessary to refute them. It's equivalent to something like this:

    If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy.
    It is not raining outside.
    Therefore, it is not cloudy.

    The claim above is ostensibly meteorological in nature. However you need not have any formal training in meteorology to recognize that it results in an invalid conclusion.

    What CH does is a form of obfuscation whereby he takes this kind of logically fallacy, injects a whole lot of sciency sounding words and details, and pretends that the conclusion is valid. Your claim essentially amounts to "The logic of his claims cannot be legitimately addressed unless you first address all of the sciency sounding words and details, which you are not qualified to do."

    The implicit counter claim made by many commenters here is essentially "The sciency sounding words and details are irrelevant if the logic itself is fundamentally flawed, which can be demonstrated without the need for formal training."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Furthermore, I've asked if Cornelius is an instrumentalist in the case of the biological complexity we observe. That is, if we are to take Neo-Darwinism seriously, this would require us to assume it's underlying explanation is true, in reality, and that all observations should confirm to them. What do I mean by "all observations should confirm to them"? I'm referring to taking a non-instrumentalist position, in that predictions of evolution are not merely what we would *experience* but an explanation of how things *are* in reality. He has again failed to disclose his position despite routinely acts as if merely finding someone unexpected falsifies evolutionary theory.

    In addition, I've asked coherent and comprehensive criteria for how he differentiates between (1) criticizing how *other people* identify God in the world as appearing incoherent and (2) personally holding that belief themselves.

    So, the issues I've pointed out here do not require one to be a biologist. Nor does Cornelius dispute the actual details of what was observed. In fact, in this post, he's referring someone else's paper, rather than one of his own. If evolution is preventing the "right" kind of research from being performed, then why isn't he the one doing it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tedford the idiot said...

    Evolutionists are also under the false and cowardly assumption that one has to provide an alternative in order to be skeptical or falsify their theory. Where did that come from? Only in the wacky world of evolutionists.


    You're the idiot wanting to remove all evolutionary theory from science classrooms. What do we replace it with Tedford? What details do we teach in IDC classes in all those high schools, colleges and universities across the world? "This looks designed to me" will take all of 30 seconds. Then what?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pedant, going to the mat in defense of purely natural explanations is a prison of your own making. You own it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Tedford the idiot said...

    Pedant, going to the mat in defense of purely natural explanations is a prison of your own making.


    Yeah Tedford, it's a prison most people call reality. You obviously aren't constrained given your frequent blustering departures from it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You have to admit, though, it's a persuasive argument against science.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Pedant,

    Reality = Purely natural explanations

    Non-reality = Everything that is not a purely natural explanation

    Does that clearly define your view?

    ReplyDelete
  25. What a hoot!

    This reminds me of an old Bill Cosby skit. He was a teacher. He describes a student that is not too bright by a short story. It goes like this:

    One day a student put a fire craker in the school room heater that explodes as planned. The teacher says. (using reverse psychology) - whomever put that fire cracker in the heater must have had very bad parents. The quilty, and not too bright student pipes up and says "It wasn't me and don't you cuss my parents."

    .

    ReplyDelete
  26. Neal: If purely "natural" explanations are the only ones allowed in science, where does that put mathematics? I think that all would agree that mathematics should be allowed in scientific arguments... but is mathematics purely "natural"?

    Neal, as I've pointed out in an earlier thread, statements such as 2+2 = 4 represent a nearly impossible to vary explanation for what we observe. This is why most mathematicians mistake it as being self-evident or justified by direct intuition, etc.

    In other words, in science, experimental testing is useless in the absence of a good explanation. Mathematics is just such an explanation. As such, it's relevant in scientific arguments.

    Furthermore, while there is no clear definition of 'supernatural' there clearly are implications in regards to claiming anything has a supernatural cause. Specifically, it's a claim that the phenomena in question is beyond human reasoning and problem solving. However, it's unclear that this is actually true. Rather it's an underlying assumption of theism since God is defined as being infinitely easy to vary by nature of being ultimately unexplainable.

    However, making such a claim appears arbitrary, as I've already pointed out elsewhere. It's a variant of solipsism.

    For example, one could easily make a similar claim in regards to existing in a heliocentric solar system. It's logically possible that the earth might surrounded in a giant planetarium that merely presents an elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system. As such, they might claim that some other type of solar system is present, or what whatever they like, including nothing at all. In other words, such a claim is ultimately based on what appears to be an arbitrary claim of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass.

    But why draw the boundary here, rather than there or elsewhere? Why not draw it everywhere? It's unclear why God's infinite possibilities are a problem for evolution, but not every other field of science.

    So, the problem is yet again that Cornelius has yet to present a coherent and comprehensive criteria for his selective objections, despite having been directly asked repeatedly.

    Furthermore, pointing out quotes that "a logical designer wouldn't do X" commits the fallacy that this sort of critique isn't applied in other fields, such as gravity. Only public disagreement would yield such public criticism and none exist because theists assume that gravity is a secondary cause of God.

    Why isn't Cornelius attempting to expose hidden scientific assumptions that God wouldn't be a direct cause of gravity? Who's to say an infinitely good God might not be directly pulling people to their deaths should their aircraft run into mechanical problems in mid flight, trip in the bathroom had hit their head on tub, etc.

    Surely, if he started making a claim that God was the direct cause, does he really think this same sort of public criticism about how people supposedly identify God's actions in the world, or lack there of, wouldn't be made?

    And, again, how does he discern between criticizing the criteria of others and actually holding that criteria themselves as a personal belief?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Scott, but would you consider mathematics to be natural?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wadeck is teasing our respected atheists here.

    What would this blog be without critics? An echo chamber like UD. They even banned me, I guess I wasn't echoing enough.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Scott said, "Furthermore, pointing out quotes that "a logical designer wouldn't do X" commits the fallacy that this sort of critique isn't applied in other fields, such as gravity. Only public disagreement would yield such public criticism and none exist because theists assume that gravity is a secondary cause of God. "

    --

    If one could observe unbounded evolution that would be a good start. The mechanisms that evolutionists say caused all of life to go from goo to you are totally incomplete. For example, they ascribe powers to natural selection and mutation that are not realistic. It's Superstition.

    --

    Besides, physicists never say that their theory of gravity is a fact because an intelligent designer wouldn't have created gravity that way. That's the difference that you need to admit.

    In making a comparision between evolutionists and 911 Truthers, the discovery institute uses the phrase, "arguing over the marching speed of hobbits" to describe those that won't listen but just keep rehearsing the same loop of tape.

    Are you ready to renounce your comparision of gravity to evolution? Are you in denial that the evolution that we observe is bounded?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pedant

    "Tedford press your gums on this..., but is language purely natural?"

    Pedant, I'm sure Tedford appreciates your reinforcement of his point. Things which are not purely natural do have a place in scientific enquiry, as purely natural explanations are not always adequate.


    "The history of science."

    Nonsense. Truth is not determined on the basis of a lack of explanations to the contrary. While an explanation may be seen as true at a particular time, knowledge may come to light in the future which will prove that explanation wrong. However, the lack of an alternative explanation in the past does not make the previous explanation true in the past. As a result Tedford is right, one does not need to provide an alternative explanation to demonstrate problems with what is seen as the proper explanation at the time.

    Evolutionists do indeed follow this line of reasoning. "If you can't provide an alternative explanation which is to my liking, I am right." That's palpable nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  31. P element preference is not limited to the 300 hotspots, but applies to many more and possibly all origins.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Pedant: You have to admit, though, it's a persuasive argument against science.

    Ultimately it comes down to an explanation for the recent and rapid advance in creating knowledge.

    Ironically, Neal seems to reject an inductivist conclusion that naturalist explanations will continue to be successful at explaining phenomena in the future because they've been successful in the past. Rather he seems to hold the belief that the universe is fundamentally incomprehensible to human beings.

    Many have made similar augments, including Richard Dawkins when he suggests the world is "queerer than we can suppose". However, in Neal's case I'd suggest this is based on a rejection of the idea that knowledge can be created in the first place. Rather, some being "just was", complete with this knowledge already present.

    In other words, our recent and rapid advance does not represent the creation of knowledge, but the discovery of pre-existing knowledge (which also accepts the misconception that we generalize observations to create new theories) The supernatural represents a boundary where discovery can only be made by revelation. God must reveal this information to us. And, even then, such revelation must be limited otherwise, well, we'd be God.

    On the other hand, we can explain the recent and rapid advance in creating knowledge with the assumption that the physical world (what we experience, in contrast to how things are in reality) consists of chains of hard to vary assertions about reality itself. As such, good explanations - which are deep and hard to vary - bring us closer to reality, while bad explanations - which are shallow and easy to vary - would by their very nature take us farther way from reality.

    Also, note this isn't based on induction. We do not assume that natural explanations will continue to create knowledge because they have in the past. We assume they will continue because we assume that reality consists of hard to vary explanations. Should someone show that reality doesn't consist of hard to vary explanations, then we'd need a new explanation for our recent and rapid advance in creating knowledge. However no such observations have been made.

    So, I'd suggest that Neal's "prison" is that the universe is fundamentally incomprehensible.

    But we do not need to stop with Neal or Cornelius. To quote from the Wedge Document….

    Governing Goals

    - To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
    - To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.


    Note the distinction been made here. This represents the boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass. At best, we can have a understanding, not an explantion.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tedford:

    If one could observe unbounded evolution that would be a good start.

    What on earth do you mean by unbounded?

    The mechanisms that evolutionists say caused all of life to go from goo to you are totally incomplete. For example, they ascribe powers to natural selection and mutation that are not realistic. It's Superstition.

    Of course the mechanisms are incomplete. Nobody claims otherwise. That's why there's still research going on.

    But why should anyone care about your opinion on evolution? You haven't studied the subject except for creationist anti-science propaganda. Did you ever read an academic textbook on evolution? If so, which one?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Gerry: If you can't provide an alternative explanation which is to my liking, I am right." That's palpable nonsense.

    Please see above. "To my liking" is arbitrary. However, I'm not presenting an arbitrary criteria. Nor is this criteria unfalsifiable. In fact, I'd invite you to retroactively classify past explanations as "good" or "bad", as described above, and point out where his explanation fails.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Neal: Scott, but would you consider mathematics to be natural?

    Neal, do you consider mathematics to be capable of being the cause of anything in particular? Can mathematics have designed human beings? If not, then what's your point?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Troy, to clarify, it would be a good start if we could observe evolution that is not shown to be limited or bounded. In other words, the examples that evolutionists give are examples of change, but changes are known to be limited... as the national academy of sciences says, they are "constrained and do not accumulate over time".


    Evolution that we can observe are "bounded fluctuations"... which is exactly what creationists have said for the last three thousand years... creation events, followed by small change within limits. Like the fossil record shows also.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Neal, once again you reveal your dishonesty. The NAS didn't say changes are "constrained and do not accumulate over time". There was a paper in PNAS (and PNAS papers do not reflect the opinion of the NAS) that said

    Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time.

    Why did you not quote the rest of the paragraph?

    And why didn't you answer my question as to what evolution textbooks you have read?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Neal: … as the national academy of sciences says, they are "constrained and do not accumulate over time".

    Neal,

    We've already pointed out this is a flawed interpretation.

    Why do you keep referencing an paper knowing (a) it doesn't support your position or (b) you do not understand how interpret said paper, but present it anyway because it merely sounds like it could stupor your position?

    With this sort of clear deception, It's unclear why you expect us to take your arguments seriously.

    In fact, I'd suggest you don't even take your own arguments seriously. Rather. you're "serious" about arguing against a theory you personally object to, even if this includes presenting arguments you know are falsehoods or that you knowingly do not understand.

    Is this what you think God want's you to do? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Troy, I quoted the whole abstract in another post on a previous article and gave the link.

    Of course, evolution is still considered a fact, regardless of the evidence. We are assured that big change evolution occured millions of years ago, but the change we see now does not accumulate... but it did before! Just what evolutionists always expected. Funny that big change evolution stuff, how it likes to hide when you want to see it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Troy, how about that Wonderful Life book by Gould? Lots of support in it for a rich fossil record of transitionals before the Cambrian, right? PE, of course, was invented due to a rich fossil record of transitionals.

    From the bluster of evolutionists on this blog you would think that the fossils come buried with arrows pointing to their phylogeny.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Evey Solara:

    P element preference is not limited to the 300 hotspots, but applies to many more and possibly all origins.

    Thanks, Evey. You're the only person who's had anything to say pertinent to the P element paper that Dr Hunter cited in his OP.

    We're still waiting for a member of our creationist panel of experts to explain how specificity in P element integration falsifies evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Troy said, "PNAS papers do not reflect the opinion of the NAS"

    Right. They'll probably start publishing ID theory too because it doesn't reflect their opinion. LOL

    Have a nice weekend

    ReplyDelete
  43. Neal Tedford, although you won't answer my questions, I will be civil and reply to yours. You asked:

    Reality = Purely natural explanations

    Non-reality = Everything that is not a purely natural explanation

    Does that clearly define your view?


    If by "purely natural" you mean lacking any supernatural component, my answer is YES!

    Now, be a sport and tell me why you question whether mathematics is "purely natural"?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Scott said...

    Neal: … as the national academy of sciences says, they are "constrained and do not accumulate over time".

    Neal,

    We've already pointed out this is a flawed interpretation.

    Why do you keep referencing an paper knowing (a) it doesn't support your position or (b) you do not understand how interpret said paper, but present it anyway because it merely sounds like it could stupor your position?


    Easy. It's because Tedford is an idiot who couldn't understand the actual solid science research that supports ToE if it crawled up his leg and bit him on his idiot butt.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thanks Pedant, always enjoy your posts as well.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Tedford:

    Troy, I quoted the whole abstract in another post on a previous article and gave the link.

    But you just didn't bother to do that now.

    Of course, evolution is still considered a fact, regardless of the evidence.

    No, it's because of the evidence. The fossil record shows the small and big changes and the genomic data confirm it.

    Your refusal to tell us what evolution textbooks you have studied is telling. You don't care about science - you just can't handle the truth.

    Have a nice weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hawks:

    One easy place to start is Sober's paper, which is linked here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/sober-religion-isnt-science-except-when.html

    ReplyDelete
  48. Actually, you can find the entire paper here....

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10048.full

    Which, to no surprise, contains additional details which are conspicuously missing from Cornelius' original post post.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Cornelius says:

    Hawks:

    One easy place to start is Sober's paper, which is linked here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/sober-religion-isnt-science-except-when.html


    Funny that in that post Cornelius repeats the same lie I pointed out long ago, that Sober "argues from dysteleology". Sober's real point is that adaptation disturbs the phylogenetic signal, and thus characters of reduced function would be more useful for tracing phylogeny. As usual with Sober, the paper is very well-written. I encourage every one to follow Scott's link and read it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Scott said:

    "If evolution is preventing the "right" kind of research from being performed, then why isn't he the one doing it?"

    That is an excellent point, although I think that IDiots would probably use the word "Darwinists" instead of evolution. Either way, Scott's point is something that I think needs to be brought out more often.

    Opponents of science, evolution, evolutionary theory, Darwin, materialism, naturalism, etc., constantly bitch about those things and make it sound as though they are prevented from doing their own research.

    There is more money within religious groups and in the pockets of religious people than in all of science and there's no law against IDiots building, equipping, and staffing their own labs or other research facilities and teams. No one is stopping IDiots from doing whatever research they want or need to do, except themselves.

    You ID pushers go on and on and on about being expelled or censored or blocked in some way, even though none of that is true. You spend all of your time whining and bitching about being blocked but you do nothing about doing your own research. You take legitimate scientific research and dishonestly pick it apart in a lame attempt to bolster your religious agenda. You do nothing on your own and you rely completely on bashing real science.

    That is NEVER going to get you anywhere positive with science. You will NOT replace science with your delusional religious agenda, and you will NOT gain any credibility with science by dishonestly and arrogantly bashing it for the sole purpose of replacing it with your religious agenda.

    Since you think that science, and especially the ToE, are wrong, bad, corrupt, biased, or whatever, do your own original research and show with verifiable evidence what YOU find. Otherwise, you're just uselessly flapping your gums and showing how shallow, uneducated, arrogant, biased, and delusional you are.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Oh, but their are plenty of Christian "universities". Why, I believe the author of this blog is employed by one. We all know what bastions of independent thought and top notch ID research they are.

    Remember how Dembski almost got expelled in a most humiliating fashion because he didn't toe the party line on The Flood That Really Happened Yes Siree? Of course the coward Dembski quickly ate his words. The same coward that bailed at the Dover trial.

    Bwahaha

    ReplyDelete
  52. Troy said...

    Of course the coward Dembski quickly ate his words. The same coward that bailed at the Dover trial.


    Yeah, but he sure got even for that one though! His masterwork "farting Judge Jones" animation sure put the evil evos in their place!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Neal: Besides, physicists never say that their theory of gravity is a fact because an intelligent designer wouldn't have created gravity that way. That's the difference that you need to admit.

    Neal, I've pointed out that there has been no need to critique such a claim publicly as it does not exist. ID proponents are not claiming that God is a direct cause of gravity. Why do you suppose that is?

    I'm suggesting that this is because they hold and underlying assumption that God would not act in a way that could be mathematically modeled and predicted. But this seems to be an assumption about what God would or would not do. In fact, we can see this sort of assumption throughout the early history of science, including Newton, etc. Ancient people used to think God opened a woman's womb. Then we started figuring out how conceptions actually worked. Surely God wouldn't act in a way that could be modeled or understood, so we no longer think this is the case.

    However, why should we assume that God wouldn't choose to pull on objects according to their mass in the very same way - every single time - which would make him the direct cause of gravity? What underlying assumption is this based on? In other words, it seems that this is an assumption that appears arbitrary, unless it's based on some particular theological belief about what God would or would not do.

    Cornelius keeps asking how we could know God wouldn't want this particular world.

    However, I'd ask, how does Cornelius know how God wouldn't go about *implementing* this particular world, including the phenomena of gravity? Even Natural Theology makes specific assumptions about God, which apparently assume God wouldn't act in a way that could be modeled.

    Yet I'd suggest this is an arbitrary assumption should we make an objective attempt to be neutral.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Beam Me Up Scotty:

    "Cornelius keeps asking how we could know God wouldn't want this particular world."
    ======

    Off hand I'd say he keeps asking because not one of the local cowards offers an experiment where by they have delved into the mind and figurative heart of an entity they insist does NOT exist and came to a conclusion as to what this entity which does NOT exist would or wouldn't do in any given situation. If possible please help us replicate your personal experiment without tripping off into a Netherworld definitions shell gaming.

    So what exact scientific method experiment did you use to arrive at your conclusions Mr Scott ???

    Please tell us so that we can replicate it and arrive at the same conclusions you did.

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

    ReplyDelete
  56. Eocene,

    The topic of Sober's paper was the details around Darwin writing Origins. As such, he was describing the climate in which Darwin created his theory. This includes objections by creationists at the time, which represented a significant influence in the form of Natural Theology. So, it's would come as no surprise that Sober would mention creationists and creations arguments.

    However, unlike the climate when Origins was written, science today does not write peer reviewed papers that in and of itself actually presents an argument of what God would or would not do. In addition, we have since discovered DNA, which wasn't available to Darwin at the time.

    In other words, Darwin may have written about God in Origins, but this was because of the particular climate of science itself at the time. We no longer live in this climate. The public might, but science does not.

    Of course, Cornelius conveniently left out the context of Sober's paper. This comes as no surprise, as we regularly catch Cornelius quote mining and misrepresenting facts to suit his agenda. This is just yet another example.

    Furthermore, despite the fact that science has changed, Sober pointed out that one of the main objections of creationists today is essentially same as in Darwin's time. "Fundamental Kinds" are separated from one another by boundaries that cannot be crossed.

    Neal's objections in this thread alone is an example of just this.

    While these boundaries may have expanded to some degree today, they still contain an implicit claim that God, or a carefully constructed functional equivalent "intelligent designer", would have implemented the world we observe in a specific manner.

    Statements such as "No intelligent designer would ever have done that." are made in direct reference to these claims, rather than presented in peer reviewed papers as arguments. In fact, the above statement made by Dawkins was a response to the following question in an interview, not a peer reviewed paper…

    Q: The so-called intelligent design critique argues that some biological machines are too complex to evolve without help from above. Your book counters with several examples of "unintelligent design." Any favorites?

    The objections of ID proponents to the contrary suggest they think their obvious and transparent effort to remove explicit references of God - carefully and intentionally designed to hold the door open for their favorite theological designer - has somehow fooled science as a whole. If you haven't figured it out by now, It hasn't. We're not buying it. Nor are you somehow entitled to demand it's acceptance as a "scientific theory" under the guise of "free speech", in leu of actually doing the science.

    In other words, these sort of statements reflect a critique of what appears to be an incoherent criteria for identifying God's actions, or lack there of, in the world by theists - in practice -, rather than representing beliefs held by those actually making the statement themselves. While Natural Theology may make fewer assumptions than Theological Naturalism, it still makes significant assumptions none the less.

    Cornelius, when will you get around to contrasting Theological Naturalism with Natural Theology?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Eocene: "Off hand I'd say he keeps asking because not one of the local cowards offers an experiment where by they have delved into the mind and figurative heart of an entity they insist does NOT exist..."

    You still don't understand the concept of 'burden of proof', do you?
    Why is someone who doesn't accept the existence of a proposed agent expected to devise experiments to test attributes of said agent?

    Those who propose the existence of said agent are the ones required to produce experiments and evidence before being taken seriously.

    (And again, "I read it in an old book." is not evidence.)

    ReplyDelete
  58. Interesting. I asked a simple question, just one simple question mind you and as true to your historical nature you reply with an entire manuscript which trips off into Nowhere Man's yellow submarine world. Well here's the only bit worth responding to.
    -----

    Scotty:

    "However, unlike the climate when Origins was written, science today does not write peer reviewed papers that in and of itself actually presents an argument of what God would or would not do."
    =====

    So if I have this correct, the question of what a god, any god, would or wouldn't do is nothing more than a smartassism used only in a debate setting, especially when you consider the way it is used by people like PZ Meyers ???

    ReplyDelete
  59. Eocene: Interesting. I asked a simple question, just one simple question mind you and as true to your historical nature you reply with an entire manuscript which trips off into Nowhere Man's yellow submarine world.

    First, your "simple" question was actually a loaded question, which commits the same fallacy as "when did you stop beating your wife?" Rather than simply say, "We don't. Cornelius merely creates an elaborate misrepresentation that makes it appear that way", I actually provided a detailed example where he was caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

    Second, if my comment actually "[tripped] off into Nowhere Man's yellow submarine world.", then you should have no problem pointing out exactly where and how. Please be specific.

    Furthermore, I certainly do not claim to have a personal relationship with the "mind and figurative heart" of said being. That would be theists, such as yourself. I'm merely pointing out what appears to be an inconsistent application of how theists identify God's actions, or lack there of, in practice.

    For all I know, God could have created the universes last Thursday with the appearance of age, false memories of creating cars, medicine, computers, etc..

    However, in doing so he would have created false memories of Darwin having developed evolutionary theory, the fossil record, past molecular evidence and false memories of the theory's acceptance by science. Could God have wanted to set up such a scenario? We cannot rule it out. However, if so this suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with our ability to create knowledge. We might as well give up here and now, because what we think is reality simply isn't a reliable. Such a claim is a denial of scientific realism, just like solipsism.

    And so is the current crop of ID. If the biosphere really was carefully designed by an intelligent designer then apparently he was blindsided by the acceptance of Neo-Darwinism by mainstream science (and not very intelligent) or he planned it all along; just as if a "designer" who created the universe last Thursday planned the mere appearance of age, false memories, and the acceptance of false theories.

    In other words, rather than creating the universe last Thursday in a way that merely made it look *as if* knowledge had be created by the entirety of science - including Darwin's theory- the designer created the biosphere *as if* the process of evolution created the knowledge found the genome, but did not.

    As such, it's a denial of scientific realism and a variant of solipsism.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Eocene: So if I have this correct, the question of what a god, any god, would or wouldn't do is nothing more than a smartassism used only in a debate setting, especially when you consider the way it is used by people like PZ Meyers ???

    It's a criticism of what appears to be an inconsistent application of how theists identify God's actions, or lack there of, in practice. Apparently, the terms 'Intelligent' and 'design' can be varied to mean anything and everything depending on the context in which it's being applied.

    In over words, it's not even clear which God are you referring to as many definitions exist. Is God merely just some person who is infinitely powerful? Is the the God of open theism? Or is God pure love in that he can only sit on the sidelines and make us feel warm and fuzzy?

    And let not even get started on exactly when or how he intervenes, and in which ways. Again it seems to vary depending on exactly what people are trying to "explain" by involving God. The Bible is just one such example.

    Again, should we attempt to take the claim seriously, in that God "designed" the biosphere, in reality, and that *all* observations should conform to them, we see what appears to be conflicts in how God's actions, or lack there of, are identified in practice.

    Of course, this is no mere coincidence. God is a bad explanation in that he's easily varied an related to whatever you're attempt to explain directly via the claim itself. There is no deep and hard to vary explanation as to how God does anything, in realty. It's all magic.

    ReplyDelete