Sunday, September 11, 2011

They’ll Always Blame it on You: Response to Comments

It’s the oldest trick in the world. Tell your lies and then blame it on the other guy. After centuries (millennia actually if you care to go back that far) of proclaiming religious truths and mandating their pseudo science, evolutionists blame it on you.

They insist the world must have spontaneously arisen because, after all, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread.” They can’t provide the details, but they’re absolutely certain evolution is a fact. And if you doubt any of this—if you point out the sham—then you get the blame.

Here is a typical response from an evolutionist. When I explained the evidence of DNA repair, the reader blamed me:

I share Dr Hunter's awe at the beauty of biology as science has been revealing it. I don't share his presupposition that the origin of life or its subsequent history are dependent on an imaginary supernatural creator.

I am also in awe at the scale of the Universe as science has been revealing it. I don't share his religiously inspired presupposition that the scale of the Universe necessarily required supernatural creation.

Burn me at the stake.

So after constructing a religious theory based on centuries of theological dogma and ruining the careers of those who dare to question the pseudo science, evolutionists turn it around and point the finger at the dissenters. Those who question evolution, they must be the ones with the religious presuppositions. They are the ones who persecute.

I couldn’t care less if the evolutionist’s silly ideas are true or not. Given the evidence it would be remarkable if evolution is anywhere close to the mark. But there is some evidence for evolution, and perhaps its many problems will be resolved in the future. If the evidence shifts to support the idea, that’s fine by me. For the idea of evolution is not the problem. The problem is the evolutionist’s misrepresentation that evolution is a fact.

From the misrepresentations of the science, to the bogus truth claims, to the blackballing, to the legal canards, evolutionists have perpetrated not one long argument, but one long misrepresentation. It is a sordid tale that even Hans Christian Andersen could never have imagined.

Religion drives science and it matters.

101 comments:

  1. CH: Here is a typical response from an evolutionist. When I explained the evidence of DNA repair, the reader blamed me.

    Cornelius, you didn't just present pure observations. To quote you wrote…

    CH: But the narrative does not comport with reality.

    After presenting what is a clear misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, etc.

    It's unclear why you wouldn't expect to be blamed when you keep presenting the same sort of misrepresentations over and over again, despite being corrected over and over again, while failing to address these instances, over and over again.

    We do not think you're stupid. Nor do your posts suggest you have problems creating short term memories. As such, what other conclusion do you expect us to reach? What other explanation do you have for your repeated disingenuous behavior?

    Again, when will you contrast Natural Theology with Theological Naturalism?

    After all, Natural Theology is essentially what you're attempting to revert science back to. The strategy, which this blog plays an active role in, is outlined in black and white in the Wedge Document

    ReplyDelete
  2. In case it's not crystal clear….

    William Dembski wrote in his book "The End of Christianity"….

    “Noah’s flood, though presented as a global event, is probably best understood as historically rooted in a local event.”

    However this did not go over well with Southwestern Seminary’s president Paige Patterson, which is Dembski's employer. From an article at Florida Baptist Witness…

    Patterson said that when Dembski’s questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood, Patterson said.

    “Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,” he said.


    And did Dembski take a stand to follow the evidence wherever it leads?

    In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.

    and ….

    Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.

    So, it would seem that Dembski faced a "philosophical and ethical question" Did he “sell out” for his job? How many lies and absurdities should one tolerate to maintain their position?

    Or does Dembski really bow to the text?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter said...

    It’s the oldest trick in the world. Tell your lies and then blame it on the other guy. After centuries (millennia actually if you care to go back that far) of proclaiming religious truths and mandating their pseudo science, evolutionists will always blame it all on you.


    That's pretty funny coming from a guy who has sold his scientific integrity to the Discovery Institute, a right wing Christian religious/political lobbying organization, and now gets paid to publish anti-science lies on his blog on a regular basis.

    Do tell us about lying for your cause CH. You're the professional at it here.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius, what exactly is your opinion/theory/inference as to how living things originated and diversified into all the species on Earth?

    Do you write your articles and comments the way you do because you are paid to do so? Do you receive monetary compensation for writing your articles and comments, and if so, by whom?

    Do you hate, and fight against, the theory of evolution because you can't stand the thought that you evolved from an ape?

    Do you also hate, and fight against, the ToE because of your religious beliefs?

    Do you believe that the christian god created the universe, and all the life within it?

    Do you believe that life forms never change (evolve)?

    Do you believe that humans, dinosaurs, trilobites, pantodonts, multitiberculates, and ammonites lived alongside each other (i.e. all at the same time in the past)?

    How would you explain 'extinction'?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let's not forget about that Biola doctrinal statement either, which Cornelius is required to adhere to:

    "The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power."

    Makes it bit hard to see statements like this one in the OP:

    "I couldn’t care less if the evolutionist’s silly ideas are true or not. "

    as remotely honest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ooops. I accidentally truncated that quote from Biola. Here's what I intended to include:

    "The existence and nature of the creation is due to the direct miraculous power of God. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of kinds of living things, and the origin of humans cannot be explained adequately apart from reference to that intelligent exercise of power. A proper understanding of science does not require that all phenomena in nature must be explained solely by reference to physical events, laws and chance.

    Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I couldn’t care less if the evolutionist’s silly ideas are true or not.

    But of course you really do care Cornelius. You obviously care a great deal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. didymos:

    This should answer your questions:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/03/creation-versus-evolution-real-story.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Booksmith:

    "Makes it bit hard to see statements like this one in the OP:

    "I couldn’t care less if the evolutionist’s silly ideas are true or not. "

    as remotely honest."

    AND

    Norm Olsen:

    "But of course you really do care Cornelius. You obviously care a great deal."
    =====

    Of course he cares, but you've conveniently left out and blurred the points he's been making since he started this blog. If evolution were the mechanism used, it would not change his view of belief in a creator, if indeed the creator used a single original cell and all other life morphed from that mythical RNA world.

    The problem he has is the rubbish pimped off as evidence for evolution which is nothing more than FAITH-BASED STORYTELLING(which of course may be found with most of the world's best known religions) and promoted as fact, rather than admitting they're religious FACTOIDAL assumptions. The so-called proofs being pimped as evolutionary micro-wonders are nothing more than the usual horizonal adaptational variations within the same type of living organism. No one really disagrees with this, just the over bloated assumptions that this must therefore be the mechanisms by which MACRO-Miracles magic take place.

    The big problem is that these observed micro adaptational features within the same group of any organism are not challenged by even people who claim belief in a creator. It's going beyond the observations and fabricating myths of macro changes by means of this observed phenomena. No one has observed verticle evolutionary wonders and this is where the faith comes in. The observed variation of any living organism within an orderly framework of boundaries which is all that has been observed is in no way controversial. But as Cornelius points out in his link to "Doesn't-Know-Diddly"

    Cornelius:
    "Scripture presents a creator who is in control. This creator knows precisely what he is creating. He may use miracles, he may use natural processes, but there are no surprises in the end."

    So how does the Bible support Cornelius claims ??? It merely explains an order within boundaries, something that is sadly becoming less and less apparent as human imperfection and error fail at proper custodialship of this planet. But the Bible also explains this about the Creator and it is this that has been observed in nature.

    1 Corinthians 14:33

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    (33) "For He is not a God of confusion and disorder but of peace and order."

    Other areas where Cornelius may agree are with such Evolutionists experiments as the case of Miller/Urey Warm Little Pond experiments which ONLY prove that not only is it imperative for such naturalistic mechanisms of electricity, magnetism, chemicals, gases, etc to make biological life, but that it also requires some type of an intelligence to manipulate, rig and guide with massive amounts of purpose and intent to make it all a success in the first place.

    Of course this will be figuratively defecated upon by the degenerates over at Oleg's and Zachriel's "Cornelius is an Blind Ignoramous" thread over in the anti-evo shack where Cornelius himself once visited, but Cornelius is aware of that too as are most people.

    *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pedant:

    "Burn me at the stake."
    ====

    This sounds exactly like something from an old Gary Larson "Farside" clip!

    "Having failed as the 'Great Educator' in real life, Professor Dirk Schnaebel views death as a Martyr a viable option."

    ReplyDelete
  11. It’s the oldest trick in the world. Tell your lies and then blame it on the other guy.

    Argh!!! I just got my irony meter fixed, and here CH just blew the thing all to hell. I should know better than to bring it anywhere near a creationist by now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scott:

    "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.."
    =====

    Scott's mother as a Biology Professor at UC Santa Barbara during the late 1960s Counter Culture Revolution


    Wow!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Venture Free:

    "Argh!!! I just got my irony meter fixed, and here CH just blew the thing all to hell. I should know better than to bring it anywhere near a creationist by now."
    =====

    Actually you've just proved his point with this statement here. The man has repeated stated that he is NOT a Creationist. Take a look at what some of his views are here from the link he provided "Don't Know Diddely" with.

    Cornelius:
    "Can your religious beliefs accommodate an old earth and species arising via natural processes rather than miraculous intervention? To this I say sure."

    Clearly a Fundie(which is what a true creationist is) would never admit to anything remotely close to this. They are on Par with Fundie Atheists. Cornelius isn't even advocating "CREATIONISM" be taught in schools. He perhaps does have some "Intelligent Design" leanings, but knows full well it will never be allowed in schools period.

    Perhaps YOUR 'Irony Meter' has more of a "Mirror Mirror on the Wall" flavour about it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. In 2001, Henry M Morris of the Institute for Creation Research wrote (http://www.icr.org/article/455/):

    Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

    Some excerpts:

    "The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
    -----
    Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.

    Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.

    Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

    Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

    Sound familiar?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius,

    In the post you just mentioned you say:

    ... Scripture does not seem to be easily adaptable to the evolutionary narrative. But saying this is different than saying scripture definitely excludes evolution. For me evolution is not a likely interpretation of scripture, but it is not out of the question. And if it is not out of the question, then it must be considered.

    Yet, Biola's faith statement explicitly rejects common ancestry of humans and other animals. Doesn't that make the evolutionary origin of species to be out of the question? Or perhaps you did'd have to adhere to Biola's statement?

    Also, when asked about your religion you say you're a Christian, but that doesn't really say much, doesn't it? There are hundreds of different Christian denomination that hold very different, often incompatible, doctrinal views. I'd like to ask, to what specific (if any) Christian denomination do you belong?

    Some people seem to be proud of proclaiming their Christianity, but somehow ashamed about the specifics of their denomination. I don't think you'd be one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Of course I "cannot prove" that anyone except myself exists either. Is realism religion?

    I "cannot prove" that the earth exists in a heliocentric solar system (or any type of system at all) rather than actually being surrounded by a giant planetarium that mearly presents an elaborate simulation of a heliocentric solar system. Is the conclusion that we live in a heliocentric solar system religion?

    I "cannot prove" that gravity is a uniform, natural force. Is the theory of gravity religion?

    ad nauseum...

    in other words, Cornelius and company seem to lack a comprehensive and coherent criteria as to want is or is not religion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pedant:

    Sound familiar?

    I'd swear Cornelius did his PhD with this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pedant:

    "Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism."

    "Sound familiar?"
    =====

    LOL - You fail once again. This is beautiful, you just set yourself up for a fall.

    The biblical definition of a 'god' is not necessarily an enity or living being. For instance, let's deal with your terms naturalism/Humanism. “Belly” is used figuratively to denote fleshly appetite, or desire of a materialistic minded person, and as a source of speech or argument. Here is how the King James Version renders the Greek word 'belly' when it calls it a god which is worshipped.

    Romans 16:18

    King James Version (KJV)

    (18) "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

    Here's the modern rendering of what is actually meant:

    Romans 16:18

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    (18) "For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites and base desires, and by ingratiating and flattering speech, they beguile the hearts of the unsuspecting and simpleminded [people]."

    Indeed, the materialist's own god can be his/her own belly for which they are devoted to worshipping and appeasing their every desire.

    Philippians 3:19

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    (19) "They are doomed and their [a]fate is eternal misery (perdition); their god is their stomach (their appetites, their sensuality) and they glory in their shame, [b]siding with earthly things and being of their party."

    But specifically the Bible points out and in a sense actually foretold this new age religion of our times.

    Romans 1:25

    Amplified Bible (AMP)

    (25) "Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature[or creation] rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever! Amen (so be it)."

    Not only do you believe and worship the creation or creature as some kind of animist omnipresent god, your belief system is also founded on faith statements promoted as facts for which when pressed with evidence against, you procede to dogmatically defend with all manner of viciousness of an irrational believer with Cult-like origins. Not only defend, but yes, you even prosyletize your faith. Your continued presence on these boards is proof positive you are a hard core religious individual.

    Here's some advice. Hatred of something is a lousy foundation for belief in something else to the contrary. In fact it's a foundation of sand for which the wind storms of controversy are easily lashing against and undermining.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Scott quoted Dembski:

    "I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors."

    And that's where the rubber hits the road. There are many lines of evidence from paleontology, anthropology, genomics and population genetics that point against a founding couple for all of humanity. This is acknowledged by non-fundamentalist Christian professors of religion. See, for example:

    After Adam: Reading Genesis in an Age of Evolutionary Science, by Daniel C Harlow

    Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins, by John R. Schneider

    in which this evidence is summarized and referenced.

    The question that the creationists here should answer without equivocation is whether they agree with Dembski's assertion that Adam and Eve were real historical personages.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Geoxus:

    I'd swear Cornelius did his PhD with this guy.

    They are birds of a feather, as the saying goes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread.”

    The odd and mysterious sacrificial solution of the death of His own Son and being born again into a new life is equally a path that a sensible God would never tread.

    But the priests of knowledge always imagine that they understand a "sensible" God so the passion of the crucible of creation seem like nonsense to them. In fact, they usually seek to kill Him. Sometimes in the world of ideas, sometimes literally... and yet they never seem to succeed. One can almost see the memes that possess them complaining about it sometimes, something like: "What else do we have to do?"

    It seems that patterns of thought emerge from the chaotic brain events in the minds of imbeciles to imagine themselves knowledgeable, sensible and capable of keeping everyone clean and safe based on scientia/knowledge. They think that the Holy One has gotten His hands dirty and isn't "sensible." After all, they can imagine that they have knowledge of all. Well, until their knowledge returns to dust, dirt and excrement that they imagine themselves to have emerged from. Imagine that!

    ReplyDelete
  22. They are birds of a feather, as the saying goes.

    Do you think that you will ever be successful in causing the memes of their species to go extinct?

    I doubt it. But I figure that you might have some fun imagining a mythology of progress in which it is so. And then you could probably imagine that it's a fact and an entirely accurate view of reality too. Case closed!

    Lol...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Scott: 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.

    Eocene: Scott's mother as a Biology Professor at UC Santa Barbara during the late 1960s Counter Culture Revolution. Wow!!!

    As I expected, it appears that no details will be provided. It's all bluster.

    Eocene, are you denying that God could have "created the universes last Thursday with the appearance of age, false memories of creating cars, medicine, computers, etc.."

    If not, then what's so "Nowhere Man's yellow submarine world" about it? Why don't you actually address the point I'm making?

    You're response suggest that you can't....

    ReplyDelete
  24. LOL, didymos, I thought you were the evil diatom.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Do you write your articles and comments the way you do because you are paid to do so?

    Are your poor little memes getting tired? Would you take away his liberty, resources or means of writing if you could? Do you think that would work?

    Do you receive monetary compensation for writing your articles and comments, and if so, by whom?


    What if it was by the State? Wouldn't that be something? But no, it seems that only fascists receive money from the State to promote pseudo-science of all sort. From the eugenics movement to some of the latest forms of pseudo-science, the pattern seems the same.

    Do you hate, and fight against, the theory of evolution because you can't stand the thought that you evolved from an ape?

    Do you think that you have proven some sort of humility by imagining to know that you have knowledge of all evolution/unfolding?

    Do you believe that life forms never change (evolve)?

    Do you believe that all forms of change are equivalent, including the forms of change in which events in your brain take place? If it is all equivalent, then does that indicate to you that you have excrement for brains?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Geoxus quoted from CH's referenced post…

    CH: ... Scripture does not seem to be easily adaptable to the evolutionary narrative. But saying this is different than saying scripture definitely excludes evolution. For me evolution is not a likely interpretation of scripture, but it is not out of the question. And if it is not out of the question, then it must be considered.

    Geoxus: Yet, Biola's faith statement explicitly rejects common ancestry of humans and other animals. Doesn't that make the evolutionary origin of species to be out of the question? Or perhaps you did'd have to adhere to Biola's statement?

    However, "…evolution is not a likely interpretation of scripture, but it is not out of the question." is exactly the sort of ambiguity these statements are designed to clear up. They exist precisely to prevent this sort of ambiguity. Otherwise, why do they exist?

    So, I'd repeat Geoxus' question. Wouldn't your acceptance of this statement clearly rule out this interoperation of scripture? If not, then please enlighten us as to what this statement does reflect…. Your personal belief? Your professional belief? None of the above?

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

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eocene: Actually you've just proved his point with this statement here. The man has repeated stated that he is NOT a Creationist. Take a look at what some of his views are here from the link he provided "Don't Know Diddely" with.

    Wouldn't that depend on how Cornelius reconciles this with Biola statement?

    Dembski supposedly reconciles the Southwestern Seminary statement by claiming animals before Adam and Eve didn't die or eat each other, etc. Rather, everything happened retroactively. However, this suggests that God created Tigers with fangs and digestive systems they didn't need, or he radically altered them when Adam and Eve supposedly fell, etc. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Dembski wrote a while book of the subject, which even then got him in hot water with the Southwestern Seminary president (see above)

    In other words, there doesn't seem to that much of a difference between a OEC and a YEC. Both assume that God took actions that would clearly interfere with our the creation of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Furthermore, It would seem that Dean Kenyon, who essentially founded the entire ID movement, disagrees with you

    Here's a quote from Kenyon's affidavit in the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard case.

    Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. (...) Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts.

    Despite this change, "creations science" was still found to violate the Establishment Cause. That same year, evidence in the Dover 2005 trial revealed Kenyon's book "Of Pandas and People." was modified by replacing variations of "Creator" to variants of "Intelligent Designer".

    ReplyDelete
  30. Scott made me realise a few typos from my post:

    Doesn't that make the evolutionary origin of species to be out of the question? Or perhaps you did'd have to adhere to Biola's statement?

    Should be:

    Doesn't that make the evolutionary origin of our species to be out of the question? Or perhaps you didn't have to adhere to Biola's statement?

    Thorton,

    I suspect Cornelius never sold himself to anything. I'd think he always thought of his scientific training as part of his larger plan for the glorification of God, right from the beginning.

    I'm not merely being charitable, it is my honest impression.

    mynym,

    Completely OT. Do you know the etymology of your family name?

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

    ReplyDelete
  32. Scotty:

    "You're response suggest that you can't.... "
    ====

    Nice try Scotty. Half of the drug induced diatribe nonsense you are in the habit of pimping doesn't merit a response[ever wonder why Cornelius ignores most of your rubbish???] since it never deals with reality anyway.(which first and foremost is it's ultimate purpose]
    I know I know, what is your definition of reality ??? You wanna play phishing games Scotty, go beg Neal to come out to play. You've unfortunately got the same problem as that cowardly bitter old man of founding a belief system based on murderous hatred of something you personally don't like. Build a better foundation Scotty and you won't be swept into the mud pit each time.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I wrote: Dembski supposedly reconciles the Southwestern Seminary statement by claiming animals before Adam and Eve didn't die or eat each other, etc. Rather, everything happened retroactively.

    As a follow up, I read a few reviews of Dembski's book "The End of Christianity" to ensure my interpretation of "retroactively" was accurate. It ends up, I was incorrect.

    In the case of Dembski, retroactively means that God, by nature of existing outside of time, introduced natural evil into the word from the beginning of creation based on foreknowledge of Adam's future actions. Specifically he asks why causes should always precede effects in a universe created by a being that is omniscient and exists outside of time.

    So, apparently he's appealing to some sort of "backwards causation" to have his cake and eat it too.

    Of course, to do this he has to reinterpret Genesis 1-3 as God lifting Adam out of a world of pre-existing natural evil, planting him in the pristine Garden of Eden, giving him false memories to replace those of having lived though the very evil brought about by the sin he had yet to commit, giving him "the breath of life", etc.

    However, this too suggests God took actions that would interfere the our ability to create knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Pedant:

    "And that's where the rubber hits the road. There are many lines of evidence from paleontology, anthropology, genomics and population genetics that point against a founding couple for all of humanity."
    ====

    This is incredible. First you LIE about what Cornelius actually said in the DNA Repair thread for which as true to your cowardly character you didn't even once address any of his O.P. points where evolutionists in general lie about origins. Then you claim in the above comments he cited that he brought up the subject of the supernatural for which he never once said anything about any God doing anything.

    The subjects he brings up are always of a questioning nature as to the nothing more than mere faith statements propagated as facts when indeed they are nothing more than religiously based factoidal chants.

    Now rather than address your previous lies made through your rotten dentures from the previous O.P., you continue on a diatribe of deflection that avoids answering the lies exposed in the first place. Is your Cult that brain damaged that there is no possible way to respond in a honest manner when legitimate questions are posed about your religious dogma ???
    ------

    Pedant:

    "The question that the creationists here should answer without equivocation is whether they agree with Dembski's assertion that Adam and Eve were real historical personages."
    ====

    And here we are once again. Not only does this have nothing to do with the topic of the O.P. , but your continued propagation of lies of Cornelius being a Creationist continue to compound your lack of genuineness with such diliberately deflecting with such off the wall subject idiocy. You are one of the better arguements against evolution. No wonder you were cited as an example of being a full blown Liar.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I wrote: However, this too suggests God took actions that would interfere the our ability to create knowledge.

    In case it's not clear, I'm referring to cases when God's supposed actions end up creating false knowledge.

    For a YEC, the earth is created in a way that appears *as if* it was billions of years old, but this is actually false. In the case of a OEC, the biosphere was created in a way that appears *as if* knowledge in the genome was created by RM and NS, but this is actually false. A God that creates the universe last Thursday creates false memories of creating theories that accept this false knowledge, including the knowledge of Darwin having created evolutionary theory, etc.

    In other words, what Dembski's theology shares with those above is God having acted in a way that undermines our ability to create knowledge and, thereby do science. It's a form of anti-realism and variant of solipsism.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Eocene: Half of the drug induced diatribe nonsense you are in the habit of pimping doesn't merit a response[ever wonder why Cornelius ignores most of your rubbish???] since it never deals with reality anyway

    Just so I have this straight…. when you do not understand or agree with something, you simply claim it does't merit a response rather than admit ignorance, request clarification or address the issue? No suppress here.

    Again, it's unclear how can we have a reasonable discussion on this topic of evolution as a scientific theory without first determining what is science, how theories are formed, etc. You're apparent willingness to completely ignore the issue suggest you're not actually interested in having a reasonable discussion.

    To appropriate Pedant's recently appropriated quote….

    There are more things in the philosophy of epistemology and science than are dreamt of in your theology.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I am critical of the critics on this blog. Though they deny it vehemently, they prove Dr. Hunter's point: "Evolution MUST be true" because the critics religious beliefs, not the evidence, demands it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Red Reader said...

    I am critical of the critics on this blog. Though they deny it vehemently, they prove Dr. Hunter's point: "Evolution MUST be true" because the critics religious beliefs, not the evidence, demands it.


    Red Reader, when will you be providing those details about how the 'Intelligent Design' of life was done? When was it done, and where, and by what mechanisms, and by what Designer(s)? We've been waiting for you or any other ID pusher to supply those pesky details for some time now...

    ReplyDelete
  39. In that post of Dr Hunter on Sunday, March 27, 2011, the link to which he provided above:

    Evolutionists sometimes ask me if my religious beliefs can accommodate evolution. Do I criticize evolution objectively, they ask, or do I have religious motives? The answer is that my religious beliefs do not accommodate evolution, but not for the suspected reason.

    There it is folks. Despite his current protestations to the contrary, he has said in so many words that his objection to evolution is based on sectarian religion.

    For further evidence, see in that March 27 post his references to scripture, and the argument about how he construes God's creative intent. He says that getting God's intent right is the real story.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The whole truth:

    what exactly is your opinion/theory/inference as to how living things originated and diversified into all the species on Earth?

    That on the one hand the problem is underdetermined, theoretically allowing for multiple feasible explanations, and probably many which haven’t been thought of or elaborated. Yet on the other hand, there is no explanation that does a good job of explaining the data.


    Do you write your articles and comments the way you do because you are paid to do so? Do you receive monetary compensation for writing your articles and comments? Do you hate, and fight against, the theory of evolution because you can't stand the thought that you evolved from an ape? Do you also hate, and fight against, the ToE because of your religious beliefs?

    No, no, no and no.


    Do you believe that the christian god created the universe, and all the life within it?

    Yes.


    Do you believe that life forms never change (evolve)?

    This question is ambiguous. There is no question life forms change, but that does not equal evolution.


    Do you believe that humans, dinosaurs, trilobites, pantodonts, multitiberculates, and ammonites lived alongside each other (i.e. all at the same time in the past)?

    No, I don’t believe the Bible mandates YEC.


    How would you explain 'extinction'?

    Failure to reproduce for any number of reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Red Reader -

    An absurd argument. What religious beliefs? Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution requires no particular religious stance. You can accept it and be an atheist, a theist, a deist, a polytheist...

    We only get a conflict when one's religious stance insists that the ToE is NOT true, because 'My religious myth is literally true and anything which contradicts it is simply wrong'.

    No matter how watered down this sentiment may occassionally be, it is invariably found in some form behind any objection to ToE, including Cornelius' blog.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Cornelius -

    "That on the one hand the problem is underdetermined, theoretically allowing for multiple feasible explanations, and probably many which haven’t been thought of or elaborated. Yet on the other hand, there is no explanation that does a good job of explaining the data."

    Cornelius, I'd honestly appreciate an answer to this. Please don't feel I'm being flippant because I mean it genuinely and I hope you take it as such:

    Bearing your above answer in mind, how exactly are we to determine how life on Earth originated and diversified?? You criticise ToE for assuming methodological naturalism, but if we do not, then all experiments are futile and all observations and data are irrelevant since they MIGHT have been the result of a miracle.

    Given this, exactly how are we to find anything at all out? What you require is an alternative for the scientific method itself. What exactly do you propose instead?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ritchie said...

    Cornelius -

    "That on the one hand the problem is underdetermined, theoretically allowing for multiple feasible explanations, and probably many which haven’t been thought of or elaborated. Yet on the other hand, there is no explanation that does a good job of explaining the data."

    Cornelius, I'd honestly appreciate an answer to this. Please don't feel I'm being flippant because I mean it genuinely and I hope you take it as such:

    Bearing your above answer in mind, how exactly are we to determine how life on Earth originated and diversified?? You criticise ToE for assuming methodological naturalism, but if we do not, then all experiments are futile and all observations and data are irrelevant since they MIGHT have been the result of a miracle.

    Given this, exactly how are we to find anything at all out? What you require is an alternative for the scientific method itself. What exactly do you propose instead?


    Hammer and nail, meet Jello and wall.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ritchie:

    Bearing your above answer in mind, how exactly are we to determine how life on Earth originated and diversified?? You criticise ToE for assuming methodological naturalism, …

    Again I urge you, qua journalist, to represent a line of thinking even if you disagree. Isn’t that a prerequisite for the profession? Regarding MN, the problem is not in assuming it, but in the attendant metaphysics. As I have discussed here, if you mandate MN, then you have three choices: (i) forfeit a guarantee of completeness, (ii) forfeit a guarantee of realism, or (iii) maintain completeness and realism, and reckon with the attendant metaphysics. Choice (iii) can only be justified with knowledge that comes before the science (Meta-physics). These are just simple, logical facts. Evolutionists consistently choose (iii), yet are in denial of the metaphysics.


    … but if we do not [assume methodological naturalism], then all experiments are futile and all observations and data are irrelevant since they MIGHT have been the result of a miracle.

    The conundrum you present here is not remedied simply by assuming MN as you believe. Indeed, if you simply assume MN without recognizing, acknowledging and dealing the implications (as evolutionists fail to do), then yes, you have problems. Do you not see that acknowledging the simple, logical facts is, in fact, the solution to the very conundrum you raise?


    Given this, exactly how are we to find anything at all out? What you require is an alternative for the scientific method itself. What exactly do you propose instead?

    Well for starters, we need to acknowledge that if we mandate MN a priori, and then given that mandate conclude evolution is a fact in spite of substantial scientific problems, that our conclusion doesn’t carry very much weight, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cornelius hunter said...

    Well for starters, we need to acknowledge that if we mandate MN a priori, and then given that mandate conclude evolution is a fact in spite of substantial scientific problems, that our conclusion doesn’t carry very much weight, does it?


    Given that your "substantial scientific problems" for ToE only exist inside your own head, your "ToE is falsified!!" conclusion doesn’t carry very much weight, does it?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cornelius -

    "Again I urge you, qua journalist, to represent a line of thinking even if you disagree. Isn’t that a prerequisite for the profession?"

    Actually it totally isn't, but that's a whole other matter... :D

    "As I have discussed here, if you mandate MN, then you have three choices: (i) forfeit a guarantee of completeness, (ii) forfeit a guarantee of realism, or (iii) maintain completeness and realism, and reckon with the attendant metaphysics. Choice (iii) can only be justified with knowledge that comes before the science (Meta-physics). These are just simple, logical facts. Evolutionists consistently choose (iii), yet are in denial of the metaphysics."

    I do see your point but your error is to claim only 'evolutionists' do this. This is wrong. SCIENTISTS do this. The theory of evolution behaves no differently to any other theory in this regard. If you have a problem with mandating MN then you have problem with science, period. Claiming some theories are more guilty than others is nonsensical and incorrect.

    "The conundrum you present here is not remedied simply by assuming MN as you believe. Indeed, if you simply assume MN without recognizing, acknowledging and dealing the implications (as evolutionists fail to do), then yes, you have problems. Do you not see that acknowledging the simple, logical facts is, in fact, the solution to the very conundrum you raise?"

    I am not claiming that assuming MN solves these problems - merely that it is necessary. Because if we DON'T assume MN, then we really can make no progress. We cannot have faith in any data, any experiments, and science stops dead. We simply have to assume MN in order to function scientifically. And yes it MIGHT be wrong, but again, why single out evolution here? This is the way SCIENCE works. ToE is not unusual, or indeed unscientific, in assuming MN.

    "Well for starters, we need to acknowledge that if we mandate MN a priori, and then given that mandate conclude evolution is a fact in spite of substantial scientific problems, that our conclusion doesn’t carry very much weight, does it?"

    These 'substancial problems' are of your own misunderstanding. I've read through your Survey of Failed Predictions and virtually everything is a misrepresentation, a misunderstanding or simply wrong. You only see problems with ToE everywhere because you are desperately wanting to see them.

    That aside, mandating MN a priori doesn't really undermine our conclusions that much. It's true that every single scientific fact and assertion may be preceeded with 'assuming MN...' if you insist upon it. Most people take it as read. Now yes, MN is an assumption, but here's the thing - science is damn productive. It does, as far as we can tell WORK. If science (and I do mean science, not just 'evolution') was based on a flimsy, inaccurate assumption, how are we to explain that it does seem to so accurately decribe the world around us? If science (and I do mean science, not just evolution) is so flawed, how is it so often right?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Pedant:

    "In that post of Dr Hunter on Sunday, March 27, 2011, the link to which he provided above:

    "Evolutionists sometimes ask me if my religious beliefs can accommodate evolution. Do I criticize evolution objectively, they ask, or do I have religious motives? The answer is that my religious beliefs do not accommodate evolution, but not for the suspected reason."
    ====

    What a complete imbecile. That link he gave was in this thread, not in the former thread where you LIED about him referencing God. Everyone knows he has religious views even as he himself admits. But he was criticizing the religious claims of Evolution in that DNA Repair thread without any mention to God where you boldly dropped your 'Depends' down to your ankles, mooned the crowd and begged to be 'Martyred' for the Evolutionary religious cause. Now you are on a desparate mission to save face after being caught lying again.
    ----

    Pedant

    "There it is folks. Despite his current protestations to the contrary, he has said in so many words that his objection to evolution is based on sectarian religion."
    ====

    What a lying buffoon. You highlighted what was convenient while ignoring the import of what he was trying to explain with this,

    ". . but not for the suspected reason."

    You didn't even read the import of what he actually was saying because it was inconvenient to your flawed pathetic worldview. So lying once again comes to the rescue."
    ----

    Pedant:

    "For further evidence, see in that March 27 post his references to scripture, and the argument about how he construes God's creative intent. He says that getting God's intent right is the real story."
    =====

    He was comparing what BOTH Creationists and Evolutionists say when bringing up God's intent in accomplishing anything. Both groups are identical when making wild heartfelt religious claims. Cornelius is NOT a Creationist, but hey, don't allow that to stop you from lying through your false teeth.

    ReplyDelete
  48. CH: Regarding MN, the problem is not in assuming it, but in the attendant metaphysics. As I have discussed here, if you mandate MN, then you have three choices: (i) forfeit a guarantee of completeness, (ii) forfeit a guarantee of realism, or (iii) maintain completeness and realism, and reckon with the attendant metaphysics. Choice (iii) can only be justified with knowledge that comes before the science (Meta-physics). These are just simple, logical facts. Evolutionists consistently choose (iii), yet are in denial of the metaphysics.

    To conclude these are "simple, logical facts" is to be in denial of the entire field of epistemology, the gamut of the philosophy of science and their impact on interpreting observations.

    Specifically, these "choices" are constructed from a very specific set of assumptions about how science works, the nature of scientific truths, etc. However, Cornelius has refused to disclose the specifics of these assumptions despite being asked directly.

    As an example, these supposed 'substantial problems' Cornelius is referring to are based on these assumptions, which he disingenuously presents as being "neutral." Of the least is that it's even possible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an theoretical framework. Not only does he clearly fail to disclose them, but he does so repeatedly, despite having it pointed out to him time and time again.

    CH: Well for starters, we need to acknowledge that if we mandate MN a priori, and then given that mandate conclude evolution is a fact in spite of substantial scientific problems, that our conclusion doesn’t carry very much weight, does it?

    Of course the answer to this question depends on the details of how one goes about justifying concussions, now doesn't it? Yet, getting answers about how you actually does this is like puling teeth.

    As such, I'd suggest this is merely an attempt at a diversion from questions regarding the statements of faith raised above.

    For example, from the Biola statement:

    Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."

    This is precisely the claim we here from evolutionary skeptics. Furthermore, Cornelius refuses to disclose where he puts divine revelation in the traditional hierarchy of deduction, induction and philosophy. Is this merely a coincidence?

    The bottom line is that the objections Cornelius has explicitly disclosed are irrational because he has singled out evolution without providing a cohesive and comprehensive criteria for what is or is not science. Nor has he explicitly disclosed details of his position on how he justifies conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Eocene: ". . but not for the suspected reason."

    What neither you or Cornelius have shown is how this reason we supposedly didn't suspect is fundamentally different than the reason we supposedly did expect.

    Specially, what's the underlying justification for either claims made of special creation in Genesis or claims that God appeared to know exactly what he was creating in other scriptures? They both are based on the belief that the bible is the inerrant word of God.

    That God is depicted as knowing exactly what he is getting is a claim from the Bible itself, which Cornelius backed up with references to scripture. This is divine revelation.

    And what does Biolas' doctrinal statement say about the Bible?

    The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

    In other words, it's unclear exactly how this supposed "distinction" actually makes any difference as he still seems to justify conclusions based on divine revelation. Nor is it clear that Cornelius doesn't accept the entire Biola statement as he has yet to clear up exactly what his acceptance of them means, if any.

    Finally, these statements exist precisely to clear up any sort of ambiguity in the text. Dembski book got him into hot water for skirting Southwestern Seminary’s statement, at which time he explicitly stated that he "bows to the text".

    ReplyDelete
  50. Again, i'd suggest that the explanation for our recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge is that the truth about the physical world is reflected in hard to vary assertions about reality.

    As such, good explanations, which are deep and hard to vary, take us closer to the truth. On the other hand, bad expiations, which are shallow and easily varied, take us farther away.

    This itself is a hard to vary explanation. It's testable and it's not based on induction.

    Supernatural explanations, by there very nature, fit the definition of bad explanations. God, though some unexplainable means, directly intervened at some unknown point in some unknown way. This is shallow because God is related to the intervention only by the claim itself. There is no hard to very chain by which God could have invented in one situation, but not another.

    My point here is that Cornelius "choices" mandate some form of empiricism, justification, etc.

    Where are his arguments for these mandates? Where is the disclosure that would be necessary to present such an argument in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  51. My responses are in bold type.

    Part one.



    Cornelius Hunter said...

    The whole truth:

    what exactly is your opinion/theory/inference as to how living things originated and diversified into all the species on Earth?.

    That on the one hand the problem is underdetermined, theoretically allowing for multiple feasible explanations, and probably many which haven’t been thought of or elaborated. Yet on the other hand, there is no explanation that does a good job of explaining the data.

    I asked what YOUR opinion is.


    Do you write your articles and comments the way you do because you are paid to do so? Do you receive monetary compensation for writing your articles and comments? Do you hate, and fight against, the theory of evolution because you can't stand the thought that you evolved from an ape? Do you also hate, and fight against, the ToE because of your religious beliefs?

    No, no, no and no.

    I must say that I find your answers hard to believe, and especially the last two.


    Do you believe that the christian god created the universe, and all the life within it?

    Yes.

    Well then, that actually answers my question above about what your opinion is as to the origin and diversification of living things.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Part two.

    Do you believe that life forms never change (evolve)?

    This question is ambiguous. There is no question life forms change, but that does not equal evolution.

    Then what exactly does "equal" evolution?

    Do you believe that humans, dinosaurs, trilobites, pantodonts, multitiberculates, and ammonites lived alongside each other (i.e. all at the same time in the past)?

    No, I don’t believe the Bible mandates YEC.

    In other words, you believe in your particular interpretation of the bible.


    How would you explain 'extinction'?

    Failure to reproduce for any number of reasons.

    I thought you would get the implication but I guess I wasn't clear. So, I'll try again: How would you explain the extinction of the almost unimaginable amount of species throughout the history and prehistory of the world, in regard to intelligent design, and in regard to a 'loving', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'creating' god?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Not Even Close to the Truth:

    "I asked what YOUR opinion is."
    ===

    He gave it to you and you spat on it.
    ---

    "I must say that I find your answers hard to believe, and especially the last two."
    ===

    That's because you have an opposing worldview. Anyone would expect no less from you.
    ---

    "Well then, that actually answers my question above about what your opinion is as to the origin and diversification of living things."
    ===

    This was never Rocket Science stuff. He has expressed himself many times before. But that's right, your a Janie come lately.
    ---


    "Then what exactly does "equal" evolution?"
    ===

    The changes he's refering to are not evolutionary. Darwin's finches, Lenski's pet bacteria, etc are prime examples.
    ---

    "In other words, you believe in your particular interpretation of the bible."
    ===

    Give the lady a Brownie Star.
    ---

    "I thought you would get the implication but I guess I wasn't clear. So, I'll try again: How would you explain the extinction of the almost unimaginable amount of species throughout the history and prehistory of the world, in regard to intelligent design, and in regard to a 'loving', 'omnipotent', 'omniscient', 'creating' god?"
    ===

    God ??? I thought an asteroid caused the KT Extinction event ??? Presently the misuse and abuse of science is at fault for many of the ongoing extinction events happening on a global scale.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "The changes he's refering to are not evolutionary. Darwin's finches, Lenski's pet bacteria, etc are prime examples."

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAA!!!

    Eocene, you're priceless. You really should be on TV.

    Darwin's finches and Lenski's bacteria ARE examples of evolutionary changes. Bless your little cotton socks!

    ReplyDelete
  55. We must consider additional probabilities. This is only for one enzyme. However, one enzyme of the glycolytic cycle lacks purpose without the other, which lack purpose without the Krebs´s cycle enzymes or other oxydative pathways.
    Any aminoacid increases 20 times the probability requirements, and we did not consider the "serendipity" required for the metabolite sequence.
    In addition, we must consider that all aminoacids were available for protein synthesis with a concentration sufficient for abiotic conditions, at their zwitterionic unreactive forms, without the ribosomes machinery.
    Who has more faith?
    Perhaps the god of evolution be able to cure the blindness.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Oh, and extinctions happen all the time. There are great mass extinctions, such as the KT one, true, but there have only been 5 in the whole history of life on Earth. over 95% of species who have ever existed are extinct, and the majority of them simply lost out in the ongoing competition to survive in the wild. I believe The Whole Truth was asking how this squares with the idea of a creator who makes everything with its own special place and niche in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Marcio -

    That argument never gets any more plausible the more I hear it.

    God is, by definition, MORE IMPLAUSIBLE that any naturalistic explanation we could possibly construct, including 'blind chance'.

    A being able to create life and the universe must therefore be more complex than life and the universe. Therefore its existence is less probable than the existence of life and the universe. See?

    'Goddidit' will ALWAYS be the least likely answer. This is truly the option which requires the most faith.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ritchie:

    "Oh, and extinctions happen all the time.

    [[[ Hence we can all see the present excusing of the misuse and abuse of science by Monsanto and other Corporate entities involved in the wholesale slaughter of what's left of Earth's bio-diversity. Never fear tho, no doubt life with morph on after that ]]]

    "There are great mass extinctions, such as the KT one, true, but there have only been 5 in the whole history of life on Earth."
    ===

    I love it when FAITH is illustrated.
    ---

    Ritchie:

    "Over 95% of species who have ever existed are extinct, and the majority of them simply lost out in the ongoing competition to survive in the wild."
    ===

    I agree, but not exactly sure of your large percentage number.[yes I know, some genius with a Phd brought it to us] But clearly at one time in Earth's History, the Fauna and Flora diversity on this Earth were at their greatest heights before that last extinction event. Hence my username which illustrates great diversity from pole to pole at one time which once existed. The genetic potential for greater diversity is still present within an orderly framework, though present day imperfection of Humans works against this.
    ---


    Ritchie:

    "I believe The Whole Truth was asking how this squares with the idea of a creator who makes everything with its own special place and niche in nature."
    ===

    I believe at that point "Not Even Close to the Truth" was deviating from the subject and pressed one of those classic Evolutionist Metaphysical default answer buttons of

    "If there was a loving God he wouldn't have made things go extinct. Therefore Evolution is true."

    However now, having said that, it does fall slight under the O.P. of when evolutionists lack viable answers in any topic discussion they blame you. Thanks for pointing that out Ritchie.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ritchie:

    "Darwin's finches and Lenski's bacteria ARE examples of evolutionary changes."
    ====

    Sorry, but these changes are nothing more than adaptive examples which were also shown to oscillate back to the beginning. Unfortunately on that propaganda brochure of the Galapagos Islands by the National Science Foundation, they failed to mentioned the return of the Finches back to the original state after the drought passed, unless they've done a recent reprint, but I highly doubt it.

    We also have the Grant's to thank for something important when it comes to using time in scientific research. That is, on how not to waste 35 years of your life because of a

    Priori = existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait. Compare a posteriori.

    not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic: an a priori judgment.

    the result of which was nothing more than a biased gut felt failed worldview.

    Still we have much to be greatful for just the same. Thanks, Grants - Lenski!!!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Eocene -

    "Hence we can all see the present excusing of the misuse and abuse of science by Monsanto and other Corporate entities involved in the wholesale slaughter of what's left of Earth's bio-diversity. Never fear tho, no doubt life with morph on after that"

    Excuse me? As I've explained several times I DO in fact accept we are putting the planet in biological jeapardy. But such industrialisation is little more then a century old. An absolute eye-blink in geological terms. Yes we are causing a lot of extinctions now, but they ALSO happen all the time as par of the course of nature.

    "I love it when FAITH is illustrated."

    How have I illustrated faith? I have stated facts. Are you incapable of telling the difference?

    "But clearly at one time in Earth's History, the Fauna and Flora diversity on this Earth were at their greatest heights before that last extinction event."

    It's like you think nature exists static and unchanging for millions of years until a mass extinction wipes out loads of species. This is simply not true.

    "I believe at that point "Not Even Close to the Truth" was deviating from the subject and pressed one of those classic Evolutionist Metaphysical default answer buttons of

    "If there was a loving God he wouldn't have made things go extinct. Therefore Evolution is true.""

    Not at all, you silly little boy. There is a world of difference between asking how someone's opposing theory accounts for data, and claiming that if they cannot, theirs is true by default. The Whole Truth did the first, but not the second. Learn the difference you fool.

    This is a knee-jerk reaction to being asked to account for data to hide the fact that you CAN'T account for data. THIS is the salient fact that all ID-ers are desperate to divert attention from.

    No-one (and I'll repeat that, NO-ONE) is claiming evolution 'wins by default' if ID/Creationism is unable to account for the data. That is merely Cornelius' strawman. But on the other hand, asking how ID/Creationism does account for the data is perfectly reasonable, and the fact that it cannot is a MASSIVE blow to its scientific credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Sorry, but these changes are nothing more than adaptive examples which were also shown to oscillate back to the beginning."

    They showed absolutely no such thing. Darwin's finches adapted with their environment. There was absolutely no genetic constraints to how far they could genetically vary.

    And Lenski's bacteria showed nothing but increases in information - exactly the sort which Creationists claimed was impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Eocene: "If there was a loving God he wouldn't have made things go extinct. Therefore Evolution is true."

    That's your knee-jerk reaction to the question.

    God is assigned specific properties by classical theism. If the biosphere was carefully designed by such a God, and he really did always knew exactly what it was creating, then it would seem this same God would have known that a great majority of these organisms would indeed go extinct.

    For example, if God would have left the number or magnatude of extinction events that occurred to chance, this could have resuled in wiping out all life on the planet. As such, this God must have known exactly what he was getting in respect to extinction events the earth was subject to as a whole when he created our solar system in relation to the universe, interceded to prevent total extinction events or some combination of the two.

    Otherwise, it would seem that we were merely fortrunate that all life wasn't destroyed in such an event.

    To give just one scenario, we've observed black holes that shoot out jets of radiation that would completely destroy all life on the planet from a range of several light years. Quasars do this as well.

    So, the question becomes, what purpose do these organisms serve? Are they merely the equivalent of "red shirts" in the original Star Trek series?

    Again, if God knew exactly what he was creating - the result of which was a carefully designed biosphere - then it would seem a great number of extinctions would have been obvious from the start. Otherwise there would be a chance that the whole biosphere could have completely collapsed.

    Are you suggesting this could have been the case?

    When one designs in such way to manage risk, one designs *in* a particular a specific margin of error.

    For example, in order to design a car that does not break down a month after it's driven off the showroom floor, one must intentionally choose and design for some alternate time of failure, such as 200,000 miles under normal driving conditions. If one did not have a clue as to what normal driving conditions were, then it would seem the designer wouldn't have much of a clue as to exactly what kind of lifespan the vehicle was going to get. Nor could we merely design it to last a long as technically possible as such a vehicle would cost billions of dollars, get poor gass millage, take decades to design, etc. Our designs clearly reflect our limited knowledge of how to efficiently adapt resources to implement them.

    My point is that Neo-Darwinism explains the existence and extinction of these species as a part of the process of creation knowledge in the genome. They play a deep and hard to vary role.

    On the other hand, it's unclear why the God of classical theism would create species he knew would go extinct. "Thats just what God must have wanted" or "I'm sure he had some good reason - we just cannot comprehend it" are bad explanations as they are very shallow and extremely easy to vary.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The whole truth:

    what exactly is your opinion/theory/inference as to how living things originated and diversified into all the species on Earth?.

    That on the one hand the problem is underdetermined, theoretically allowing for multiple feasible explanations, and probably many which haven’t been thought of or elaborated. Yet on the other hand, there is no explanation that does a good job of explaining the data.

    I asked what YOUR opinion is.


    Why is it that you think that is not my opinion?



    Do you write your articles and comments the way you do because you are paid to do so? Do you receive monetary compensation for writing your articles and comments? Do you hate, and fight against, the theory of evolution because you can't stand the thought that you evolved from an ape? Do you also hate, and fight against, the ToE because of your religious beliefs?

    No, no, no and no.

    I must say that I find your answers hard to believe, and especially the last two.


    Why do you believe that?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Cornelius -

    If you are still around on this thread, allow me to ask you:

    Why do you single out 'evolutionists' for not dealing with the consequences of a priori assuming MN, when it is 'scientists' as a whole who do this?

    The Theory of Evolution behaves no differently to any other scientific theory, least of all in assuming MN. Indeed, that is part of what MAKES it a scientific theory.

    So again, why single out 'evolutionists' when your criticism applies to all science?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cornelius,

    Still waiting for an answer to...

    Scott: So, I'd repeat Geoxus' question. Wouldn't your acceptance of this statement clearly rule out this interoperation of scripture? If not, then please enlighten us as to what this statement does reflect…. Your personal belief? Your professional belief? None of the above?

    You're silence to what should be a cut and dry question does not bode well for your claims of neutrality.

    Perhaps a direct inquiry at Biola would be more conductive to resolving this question?

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

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cornelius,

    Is the theology section from the Wikipedia entry on Biola Wikipedia entry accurate?

    Specifically...

    As a final guarantee of strict adherence to its theological and cultural worldview, the university requires every faculty member, when first hired and again upon application for tenure, to submit their understanding of and complete agreement with each item of the doctrinal and teaching statements to the Talbot School of Theology for evaluation.

    Are you somehow except from this requirement?

    ReplyDelete
  68. My responses are in bold type.

    Cornelius Hunter said...

    The whole truth:

    what exactly is your opinion/theory/inference as to how living things originated and diversified into all the species on Earth?.

    That on the one hand the problem is underdetermined, theoretically allowing for multiple feasible explanations, and probably many which haven’t been thought of or elaborated. Yet on the other hand, there is no explanation that does a good job of explaining the data.

    I asked what YOUR opinion is.

    Why is it that you think that is not my opinion?

    Because it's an evasive, non-specific answer, and because when I asked you this:

    "Do you believe that the christian god created the universe, and all the life within it?"

    You answered: "Yes."


    Do you write your articles and comments the way you do because you are paid to do so? Do you receive monetary compensation for writing your articles and comments? Do you hate, and fight against, the theory of evolution because you can't stand the thought that you evolved from an ape? Do you also hate, and fight against, the ToE because of your religious beliefs?

    No, no, no and no.

    I must say that I find your answers hard to believe, and especially the last two.

    Why do you believe that?

    Because your religious beliefs are apparent, and your disinclination to the truth is too.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Ritchie:

    Why do you single out 'evolutionists' for not dealing with the consequences of a priori assuming MN, when it is 'scientists' as a whole who do this?

    I don't single out evolutionists, they've done that all by themselves. When you decide what the answer is first, and then claim it is fact in spite of the empirical evidence, then you are making a fool of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Geoxus:

    Yet, Biola's faith statement explicitly rejects common ancestry of humans and other animals.

    I didn’t know that. What “faith statement” are you referring to?


    Also, when asked about your religion you say you're a Christian, but that doesn't really say much, doesn't it?

    Well only insofar as there are folks who say they are Christian while not holding to the essentials. But I have explained my position, such as here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/03/creation-versus-evolution-real-story.html


    There are hundreds of different Christian denomination that hold very different, often incompatible, doctrinal views. I'd like to ask, to what specific (if any) Christian denomination do you belong?

    I don’t affiliate with a particular denomination.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The whole truth:

    your disinclination to the truth is too.

    How so?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thorton said...
    Red Reader, when will you be providing those details about how the 'Intelligent Design' of life was done? When was it done, and where, and by what mechanisms, and by what Designer(s)? We've been waiting for you or any other ID pusher to supply those pesky details for some time now...
    Thorton, when will you be providing those details about how evolution "created" the first protein? When was it done, and where, and by what mechanisms, and by what mindless, purposeless chance? We've been waiting for you or any other evolution pusher to supply those pesky details for some time now...

    ReplyDelete
  73. Cornelius, your disinclination to the truth is apparent in many of your statements. Just one example is this one:

    "I didn’t know that. What “faith statement” are you referring to?"

    You appear to be an instructor at Biola or are at least associated with Biola in some way, yet you speak as though you don't know about their faith statement. It took me all of a few seconds to see their faith statement with a Google search for "Biola faith statement".

    ReplyDelete
  74. Red Reader, unlike made up fantasies like religion, science takes time and effort to find answers. Evolutionary science and theory has already provided many answers and scientists are working every day to find more.

    You religious zombies just sit around bashing science and making things up and you think that you're the smart, knowledgeable ones, even though you have no real answers to anything.

    Just because science hasn't yet figured out every single mechanism as quickly as you think it should, or to to the degree you think it should, doesn't mean that your religious mumbo jumbo is real.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Cornelius,

    Thanks for the answers. At last we know about your lack of denominational affiliation!

    CH: I didn’t know that. What “faith statement” are you referring to?

    You can read it here: http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/

    The relevant passages were quoted before.

    According to Biola's HR department:

    Biola University's Doctrinal Statement remains the foundational document regarding the theological position of the University. Biola's position from its inception has been and remains Christian, Protestant and theologically conservative. Prospective and existing employees must affirm that their personal theological beliefs are in agreement with the Biola Doctrinal Statement. A prospective or an existing employee's church affiliation will be considered in determining his or her understanding of and compliance with Biola's theological position.

    My emphasis, from http://www.biola.edu/hr/university_employment/

    What's going on here? Crappy HR department doesn't enforce the doctrinal agreement policy? The doctrinal statement is a mere publicity stunt? You signed everything without reading it first?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Geoxus:

    Thanks for the answers. At last we know about your lack of denominational affiliation!

    Strange what evolutionists find to be so important.


    Yet, Biola's faith statement explicitly rejects common ancestry of humans and other animals. […] You can read it here: http://www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/

    OK, you’re referring to the doctrinal statement (not a faith statement) which does not reject common ancestry.


    What's going on here? Crappy HR department doesn't enforce the doctrinal agreement policy? The doctrinal statement is a mere publicity stunt? You signed everything without reading it first?

    What’s going on is you are a believer in mythology and when someone points it out you respond with questions about his denomination, etc. Typical evolutionist response. Make religious claims and blame the other guy.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Cornelius,

    Doctrinal statement, faith statement, what's the difference? I had no trouble figuring out that they're the same thing. You're just playing word games.

    And, regarding common ancestry, here's the wording from the Biola doctrinal (FAITH) statement:

    "Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."

    Which can only be interpreted as meaning that humans aren't physically related to any earlier or current life forms, except other humans. In other words, no common ancestry with any other life forms is allowed. We humans are separate from all other life forms in our specialness and godliness. Pfft.

    What an arrogant way to think.

    The entire doctrinal (FAITH) statement is utter insanity.

    ReplyDelete
  78. And how you can say something like this and yet consider yourself an honest man, is astounding:

    "What’s going on is you are a believer in mythology and when someone points it out you respond with questions about his denomination, etc. Typical evolutionist response. Make religious claims and blame the other guy."

    ReplyDelete
  79. Quotes from Cornelius, except when noted otherwise.

    Strange what evolutionists find to be so important

    In a discussion about personal biases from religious beliefs, sure I think it is important. You talk a lot about "evolutionists'" supposed religious beliefs all the time, don't you?

    OK, you’re referring to the doctrinal statement (not a faith statement)...

    Yep, my quibble.

    ...which does not reject common ancestry.

    Shall I quote the same passage again:

    Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

    According to you the idea that humans don't share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms is not contradictory with the common ancestry of humans and other life forms. Please explain.

    Make religious claims and blame the other guy.

    Could you quote any religious claim ever made by me? (I'm sure you'll come up with something, I'm curious!)

    ReplyDelete
  80. Geoxus:

    In a discussion about personal biases from religious beliefs, sure I think it is important. You talk a lot about "evolutionists'" supposed religious beliefs all the time, don't you?

    Yes I do, for the simple reason that evolutionist’s religious beliefs are so fundamental. They consistently refer to their beliefs in their reasoning, and their mandate that evolution is a fact entails religious premises.

    The evolution apologetic is all about religion and metaphysics, so it is hardly surprising that people would be aware of the evolutionist’s religious beliefs. You refer to these beliefs as “supposed.” I wonder why evolutionist’s can make metaphysical and religious pronouncements without people recognizing them as such.

    Not surprisingly evolution incurs major empirical scientific problems. But when skeptics point them out, evolutionists want to know “what denomination are you?” It all comes back to religion for evolutionsts.


    ...which does not reject common ancestry.

    Shall I quote the same passage again:

    Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

    According to you the idea that humans don't share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms is not contradictory with the common ancestry of humans and other life forms. Please explain.


    I don’t quite follow your last paragraph, and I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. But I’ll try to explain. First, your quote is not from the doctrinal statement. It is from the explanatory notes which are subject to various interpretations. I gave you a short version of my interpretation in that earlier post:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/03/creation-versus-evolution-real-story.html

    It’s a complex topic and my views are not necessarily fixed. But I do feel there are some obvious aspects, as I discussed in that post.

    Furthermore, the paragraph you are quoting from is about harmonizing science and the Bible. Clearly evolutionary “science,” including common descent, is deeply flawed scientifically, and theologically laden in a way that cannot be harmonized with the Bible.

    What we do know is that, given our current scientific knowledge, naturalism doesn’t work. It has failed badly, and that’s a useful, if rather obvious, scientific finding. It is true that the Bible allows for a wide spectrum of interpretations, ranging from mostly secondary causes to mostly primary causes. Unlike most other traditions, Christianity has historically allowed for this wide range, and is one of the reasons Christians have been so interested and supportive of science. And I personally am over on the secondary causes side of the spectrum.

    But the extreme, mostly-secondary-causes, edge of the spectrum simply cannot be harmonized with science.


    Could you quote any religious claim ever made by me? (I'm sure you'll come up with something, I'm curious!)

    Well I was referring to evolutionists, generally, whose convictions are that evolution must be a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I have to say that I'm absolutely amazed that you, Cornelius, could type such a pack of hypocritical, dishonest, delusional BS and expect anyone rational to swallow it.

    Everything that you accuse evolutionists of is what you're doing. You are the religious one. You are the ones who believes in myths. You are the one twisting the facts and dishonestly portraying the evidence.

    It astounds me that anyone over the age of about 8 and with an IQ over 50 could believe any of the insane fairy tales in religion. Every time I see people like you arguing for religious crap and against science I just shake my head and wonder what happened to you that could make you so gullible and blind.

    You said:

    "First, your quote is not from the doctrinal statement. It is from the explanatory notes which are subject to various interpretations."

    What a crock. The explanatory notes are applicable only to the doctrinal (FAITH) statement, which makes them part of the statement. The doctrinal (FAITH) statement and the explanatory notes are inseparable. The word games you play are childish and dishonest to the extreme.

    For some reason you think that you're fooling rational people, or maybe you just don't care if rational people fall for your games. I guess you always have your handful of loyal followers who will believe anything you say because they're just as delusional and dishonest as you are.

    I can't imagine limiting myself to being a slave to ridiculous religious fairy tales and to dictates from a doctrinal (FAITH) statement and from the loons who enforce it at Biola. You might as well let them put a ball and chain on you.

    You're wasting the only life you'll ever have on the most asinine BS anyone has ever conjured up. Every minute you spend believing in, supporting, and promoting that crap is a minute lost, that you'll never get back. Do you really think so little of yourself that you want to throw your life away for crazy myths?

    Instead of fighting against science, why don't you religious zealots contribute to science and the knowledge of mankind by helping to find the answers to the scientific questions? You sure aren't going to find any real answers in religious BS, so why don't you find a way to do something positive for the world by getting off your self righteous asses and doing some actual scientific work? Anyone can contribute to science if they want to, and you're not accomplishing anything positive by bashing science. All you're doing is making fools of yourselves, wasting your lives, and poisoning other gullible people with your insane dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  82. CH: First, your quote is not from the doctrinal statement. It is from the explanatory notes which are subject to various interpretations.

    This isn't even remotely clear. Rather, the explanatory note is designed to *limit* the range of possible interpretation of the doctrinal statement itself. It exists precisely to prevent this sort of ambiguity.

    Again from the note…

    Explanatory Note: This doctrinal statement, presented here as originally conceived by the founders of the organization, has been and continues to be the stated theological position of Biola University. Where “man” is used, referring to the human race, it includes both genders. In addition, the following explanatory notes indicate the organization’s understanding and teaching position on certain points which could be subject to various interpretations:

    Here, the note clarifies what is meant by "man" in the statement because it's the version "originally conceived by the founders of the organization".

    Are you suggesting that a valid and acceptable interpretation of the doctrinal statement could be limited to men and not women?

    Again from the explanatory note…

    Therefore, creation models which seek to harmonize science and the Bible should maintain at least the following: (a) God providentially directs His creation, (b) He specially intervened in at least the above-mentioned points in the creation process, and (c) God specially created Adam and Eve (Adam’s body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms.

    This is clearly designed to set a minimum interpretation of the doctrinal statement, in light of possible new "inadequate" origin models.

    Are you really suggesting that the note isn't designed to prevent just such an interpretation?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Quotes from Cornelius, except noted otherwise.

    Not surprisingly evolution incurs major empirical scientific problems. But when skeptics point them out, evolutionists want to know “what denomination are you?” It all comes back to religion for evolutionists.

    I want to note something here, Cornelius. I asked about your beliefs. You claim to know the beliefs of every single "evolutionist". Yet, you go ape when people speculate about your beliefs. It's up to the other readers here to think about what this says about the discussion going on here.

    First, your quote is not from the doctrinal statement. It is from the explanatory notes which are subject to various interpretations.

    I understood the explanatory notes to be an extension of the statement. And from the following quote from the same document:

    In addition, the following explanatory notes indicate the organization’s understanding and teaching position on certain points which could be subject to various interpretations

    I took that to mean the explanatory notes were intended to represent Biola's official interpretation of its own doctrinal statement; the point was to prevent other people from coming up with alternative interpretations. People here know I'm not a native anglophone, so I humbly request second opinions on this.

    Furthermore, the paragraph you are quoting from is about harmonizing science and the Bible.

    Isn't that something you aim to do, even if just for the sake of consistency in your personal views?

    Well I was referring to evolutionists, generally, whose convictions are that evolution must be a fact.

    You said my answer was a typical example of such kind of behaviour. Of course it was not, because I said nothing about the factuality of evolution this time. But don't worry, we're used to your sales pitches. As I said, I was curious about what you'd come up with.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Scott read it the same way. Good for me!

    ReplyDelete
  85. Geoxus:

    I want to note something here, Cornelius. I asked about your beliefs. You claim to know the beliefs of every single "evolutionist".

    No, I made no such claim. What I “know” is the beliefs of evolutionists who express them. Evolutionists claim their idea is a fact, and they clearly spell out why. In the apologetics literature evolutionists continually express their religious beliefs, vis-a-vis origins. This is not controversial, you merely need acquaint yourself with the literature and evolutionary thought.


    Yet, you go ape when people speculate about your beliefs. It's up to the other readers here to think about what this says about the discussion going on here.

    I did not “go ape.” What I did was point out the hypocrisy that evolutionists regularly engage in. I do not base my criticisms of evolution on religious claims, and I explained my religious views on the subject. Yet evolutionists consistently label their critics as religiously-driven.

    ReplyDelete
  86. No, I made no such claim. What I “know” is the beliefs of evolutionists who express them.

    You said I am a believer in mythology a few posts above. And according to the next quote, I'm also ignorant about the religious components of evolutionary thought.

    In the apologetics literature evolutionists continually express their religious beliefs, vis-a-vis origins. This is not controversial, you merely need acquaint yourself with the literature and evolutionary thought.

    I'm afraid I wasn't introduced to the subject with the right approach to the literature. The right approach would be quote-mining, if I've learned anything from your blog ;-)

    Now, would you address the doctrinal statement issue? Let's agree that the statement and its explanatory notes are separable insofar you were required to accept the former but not the latter. Yet, if you don't agree with the explanatory notes, you don't agree with what Biola wants to mean in their statement. You'd be adhering to the words, but not the spirit of the statement. Is this the situation?

    And I'd repeat my question: Do you aim to harmonise science and the Bible in your personal views? I know I would if I were in your position.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Geoxus:

    The right approach would be quote-mining, if I've learned anything from your blog

    Can you give me an example from this blog where an evolutionist's religious claim was inappropriately "quote-mined"?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Give it up Cornelius, you're not fooling anyone with a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  89. CH -

    "I don't single out evolutionists, they've done that all by themselves."

    That doesn't make sense. You single out evolutionists for special criticism on this very blog. You accuse them of assuming MN, when this is a perfectly scientific thing to do. If you take issue with assuming MN, then why do you continue to blog against 'evolutionists' and not scientists?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Can you give me an example from this blog where an evolutionist's religious claim was inappropriately "quote-mined"?

    LOL Cornelius. Of course, I can't answer your request, as you (generally) don't inappropriately quote "evolutionists" on their religious beliefs. You quote them on something else and then make up the religion part. Whenever you quote someone and use the word "religious", probably in over 50% of the cases we can be sure the person quoted was saying nothing even remotely related to religion.

    A recent example is this post:
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/sober-religion-isnt-science-except-when.html

    There you quote a few passages by Elliott Sober making an introduction to his Darwin's principle concept, and then you close the OP with this remark:

    Take that creationists. No creator would make a mistake twice.

    Anybody who read the paper knows Sober wasn't saying anything about any creator nor any "mistakes". He was talking about how adaptation reduces the usefulness of a character for recognising relationships of common ancestry.

    Here's Sober's definition of Darwin's principle:

    Darwin’s Principle. Adaptive similarities provide almost no evidence for common ancestry while similarities that are useless or deleterious provide strong evidence for common ancestry.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Geoxus:

    Anybody who read the paper knows Sober wasn't saying anything about any creator nor any "mistakes".

    "One of the main objections to Darwin’s theory, both when the Origin was published and in the minds of many present-day Creationists, is the idea that species (or ‘‘fundamental kinds’’ of organism) are separated from each other by walls. … This is enough to show that insuperable species boundaries (and insuperable boundaries between ‘‘kinds’’) are a myth; if different species have a common ancestor, the lineages involved faced no such walls in their evolution. And the case for common ancestry does not depend on natural selection at all." p. 10051

    "In contrast, that both misspell the same words in the same way is more telling." p. 10052

    ReplyDelete
  92. Cornelius,

    It's ridiculous to say that the mere mention of creationists necessarily implies something about a creator. Sober's just saying that creationists hold the idea that species don't differentiate beyond certain fixed boundaries, and that that idea was shown wrong. There's no statement about any creator there. If I say: "Stalinists were opposed to Trotskyists, and eventually overcame them", am I making any claim about Joseph Stalin himself?

    Regarding the misspelling quote, let's see add a little context:

    Darwin’s Principle applies outside of biology, both in other sciences and in everyday life. For example, suppose 2 students in a philosophy class submit essays on an assigned topic that are word-for-word identical (15). The common cause hypothesis saysthat the students plagiarized from the same source (a file they found on the Internet, perhaps). The separate cause hypothesis says that the students worked separately and independently. The matching is
    more probable under the first hypothesis than it is under the second. And the kinds of matching features that provide strong evidence for a common cause and the kinds that provide only weak evidence or none at all are the ones that Darwin’s principle describes. That both essays use nouns is not worth much. In contrast, that both misspell the same words in the same way is more telling.


    This is an explicit analogy with a non-biological situation. Sober does not use the word "mistake" or any other teleologically (or teleonomically)-laden term when he talks about organisms. He uses the concepts "deleterious" and "neutral" when talking about organisms. Both concepts are defined in terms of fitness, not in terms of intention.

    Furthermore, what Sober was saying in his analogy was that if two essays (or species) share the same misspelling (or deleterious trait), that's better evidence for a common author (or common ancestry, in the biological sense), rather than two separate authors (or separate ancestry). If we equate "author" with "creator" we get almost the opposite of the conclusion in your closing lines: two mistakes are more likely to be the result of a common creator. Obviously, we cannot force the analogy this way, unless you'd like to dishonestly pretend Sober found evidence for monotheism!

    By the way, nice diversion from the doctrinal statement issue.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Geoxus:

    It's ridiculous to say that the mere mention of creationists necessarily implies something about a creator. Sober's just saying that creationists hold the idea that species don't differentiate beyond certain fixed boundaries, and that that idea was shown wrong. There's no statement about any creator there. If I say: "Stalinists were opposed to Trotskyists, and eventually overcame them", am I making any claim about Joseph Stalin himself?

    On Page 10051 Sober explains Darwin's reasoning as the likelihood ratio Pr(O|H1) / Pr(O|H2), where H1 is common ancestry and H2 is separate ancestry. How does Darwin evaluate H2, so as to rebuke the creationists?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Cornelius:

    You mean to ask how does Darwin evaluate Pr(O|H2)?

    Easy, he asks God what he would or would not do. That's what you'd like to hear, right? Tough. He considers the possible causes for unrelated organisms to share certain character. These would be adaptation and pure chance. As neutral and deleterious characters do not originate from adaptation, two unrelated organisms would share the same non-adaptive character only by chance.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Geoxus:

    He considers the possible causes for unrelated organisms to share certain character. These would be adaptation and pure chance. As neutral and deleterious characters do not originate from adaptation, two unrelated organisms would share the same non-adaptive character only by chance.

    Professor, not only would that carry no force against creationism, but it simply isn’t true.

    Darwin argued that the similar crustaceans, fish and other marine animals inhabiting the seas off the eastern and western shores of North America, the Mediterranean and Japan, and the temperate lands of North America and Europe were “inexplicable on the theory of creation.”

    And unique species of bat were found on various islands. Why, asked Darwin, “has the supposed creative force produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands?”

    Islands off of South America harbored species similar to those on the South American continent, and likewise islands off Africa harbored species similar to African forms. This even though the islands were probably more similar to each other than to their respective main lands. “Facts, such as these,” claimed Darwin, “admit of no sort of explanation on the ordinary view of independent creation.”

    And biology rarely revealed unique organs designed for some special purpose. Darwin noted that the supposedly independently created species shared so many similar organs. ”Why, on the theory of Creation, should there be so much variety and so little real novelty?”

    When equine species were crossed with species from distant parts of the world, the stripes of the offspring did not resemble the parents but other species of the genus. Darwin argued that the view that such species are independent creations “makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception.” The evidence was not merely suggesting problems with the theory of special creation, it was mandating that special creation be false.

    Sober was quite correct about Darwin’s Principle.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Professor, not only would that carry no force against creationism,...

    No force against divine intervention in the origin of species? Sure. But that wasn't the point. The point was to evaluate common ancestry against separate ancestry. Sober mentioned creationists because they postulated separate ancestry. Whatever else they'd have thought is irrelevant. If we remove the reference to them, the logic of the paper remains the same.

    ...but it simply isn’t true.

    Sober quotes the passage that leads him to his conclusion about the logical structure of Darwin's argument for CA:

    [A]daptive characters, although of the utmost importance to the welfare of the being, are almost valueless to the systematist. For animals belonging to two most distinct lines of descent, may readily become adapted to similar conditions, and thus assume a close external resemblance; but such resemblances will not reveal – will rather tend to conceal their blood-relationship to their proper lines of
    descent.


    If I recall correctly, Sober cites other passages on Evidence and Evolution that draw further support for his "Darwin's principle" concept as a characterisation of Darwin's logic.

    As for your references to Darwin talking about "creation theory", I have no interest in them. Let's say Darwin said horrible, unscientific, theological, things (I'm accepting this just for the sake of the argument, as I won't bother reviewing those passages). They're all yours, I don't care. I won't defend them. They are not mentioned in the paper. They are not even mentioned in your own OP. What I do care about is the one argument for common descent that Sober is explaining in that paper. And that argument does not rely on any assumption about divine intent.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Geoxus:

    No force against divine intervention in the origin of species? Sure. But that wasn't the point.

    Sober: “One of the main objections to Darwin’s theory, both when the Origin was published and in the minds of many present-day Creationists, is the idea that species (or ‘fundamental kinds’ of organism) are separated from each other by walls.”

    The point was to evaluate common ancestry against separate ancestry.

    Separate ancestry was not a term used by Darwin. You are rewriting history. Darwin did use different phrases (theory of creation, independent creation, etc), but they all referred to creationism. I understand you are using the term “separate ancestry” to follow the Sober paper, But Sober if referring to Darwin, and Darwin was referring to creationism.

    Sober mentioned creationists because they postulated separate ancestry. Whatever else they'd have thought is irrelevant. If we remove the reference to them, the logic of the paper remains the same.

    Darwin, Sober and the evolutionists cannot evaluate Pr(O|separate ancestry) without a model of separate ancestry. Unless that model is based on creationism, they cannot refute creationism. If that model is based on some other notion of separate ancestry, then it carries no force against creationism.

    And that argument does not rely on any assumption about divine intent.

    It very much does. It must, by definition. Otherwise one could not rebuke creationism. And Darwin provides the assumptions thoughout *Origin*. Evolutionists are not shy about providing the assumptions, model, and evaluation.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Separate ancestry was not a term used by Darwin. You are rewriting history.

    No kidding. We're not talking about the precise words of the historical Darwin here, Darwin never worked with likelihood ratios either. Sober's paper is a formalisation of the logic behind Darwin's argument for common ancestry (CA). He may not have used the expression "separate ancestry", but that's obviously the alternative to common ancestry.

    Darwin did use different phrases (theory of creation, independent creation, etc), but they all referred to creationism. I understand you are using the term “separate ancestry” to follow the Sober paper, But Sober if referring to Darwin, and Darwin was referring to creationism.

    You're conflating the single postulate of creationism referred by Sober, separate ancestry (SA), with the whole "theory" of creationism, which's fundamental claim is divine intervention in the origin of biological diversity. Whatever Darwin's intentions, Sober outlines his argument for CA, and that only. There's no relationship of necessity between SA and divine intervention. One can consider the former separately.

    Darwin, Sober and the evolutionists cannot evaluate Pr(O|separate ancestry) without a model of separate ancestry.

    He has a model. All characters must be accounted by only chance and adaptation. It's as simple as that.

    Unless that model is based on creationism, they cannot refute creationism.

    Except that it refutes SA, not divine intent. The argument explained by Sober in the paper cannot conclude that divine intervention is unlikely. It cannot do that, though you wish Sober said it does.

    If that model is based on some other notion of separate ancestry, then it carries no force against creationism.

    I already answered to that, nobody's interested in your precious creationism in that paper.

    It very much does. It must, by definition.

    Then spell it out, what's the assumption about divine intent in Sober's paper? I'm not asking about what your ideas on the historical Darwin, I'm asking about Sober's paper, the one you quote-mined. Even assuming Sober's wrong about Darwin's ideas, where's the divine intent in Sober's representation of Darwin's argument?

    Still no word between the differences between Biola's intended interpretation of its own doctrinal statement and your take on it?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Geoxus:

    There's no relationship of necessity between SA and divine intervention. One can consider the former separately.

    If that were true then Sober and Darwin could not rebuke creationism, as they claim to do.


    Except that it refutes SA, not divine intent.

    No, Sober explains that the argument *does* rebuke creationism. Read the paper (see quote in my next response).


    The argument explained by Sober in the paper cannot conclude that divine intervention is unlikely. It cannot do that, though you wish Sober said it does.

    Again, Sober explains that the argument *does* rebuke creationism. Here is the quote from Sober’s PNAS paper:

    "One of the main objections to Darwin’s theory, both when the Origin was published and in the minds of many present-day Creationists, is the idea that species (or ‘‘fundamental kinds’’ of organism) are separated from each other by walls. … This is enough to show that insuperable species boundaries (and insuperable boundaries between ‘‘kinds’’) are a myth; if different species have a common ancestor, the lineages involved faced no such walls in their evolution. And the case for common ancestry does not depend on natural selection at all." p. 10051


    It cannot do that, though you wish Sober said it does.

    Of course Sober said it does. You are not reading the paper, and now criticising me for misrepresenting Sober when I’m explaining it to you.


    I already answered to that, nobody's interested in your precious creationism in that paper.

    What do you mean, “your precious” creationism?


    Then spell it out, what's the assumption about divine intent in Sober's paper? I'm not asking about what your ideas on the historical Darwin, I'm asking about Sober's paper, the one you quote-mined. Even assuming Sober's wrong about Darwin's ideas, where's the divine intent in Sober's representation of Darwin's argument?

    I’m not saying Sober is wrong about Darwin’s ideas. What is baffling, though, is that earlier you noted the model (All characters must be accounted by only chance and adaptation) but now it seems you deny there is any such model.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Quotes from Cornelius.

    Again, Sober explains that the argument *does* rebuke creationism. Here is the quote from Sober’s PNAS paper:

    What it rebukes is the "species separated by walls" thesis of creationism, but not "creation theory" as a whole, nor the most important claim of creationism: divine intervention in the origin of species. Again, you're equivocating a single creationist thesis with "creation theory" with all of its postulates. Furthermore, re-inspecting the quote:

    One of the main objections to Darwin’s theory, both when the Origin was published and in the minds of many present-day Creationists, is the idea that species (or ‘‘fundamental kinds’’ of organism) are separated from each other by walls.

    You can see Sober's actually interested on the "species separated by walls" whenever it comes from. Either from Darwin's colleagues or modern creationists. He could have added raëlians to the list. It doesn't matter.

    What is baffling, though, is that earlier you noted the model (All characters must be accounted by only chance and adaptation) but now it seems you deny there is any such model.

    "All characters must be accounted by only chance and adaptation". Where's God in that?

    You see God everywhere.

    And let's not forget, what you're saying now is not what you said in your original OP. What happened to your "no creator makes the same mistake twice"? How does it fit? You're recurring to an alternate rationalisation here 'cause you could not defend your original misrepresentation.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Geoxus:

    What it rebukes is the "species separated by walls" thesis of creationism

    Yes, it it rebukes is the "species separated by walls" thesis of creationism. That is fundamental to creationism. Creationists do not accept common ancestry. Some creationists believe in limited common descent *within* kinds, but not between kinds.


    but not "creation theory" as a whole

    That’s a distinction without a difference. It wouldn’t rebuke "creation theory" as a whole only to the extent that there are versions of creation theory that accept common descent between kinds. Even if there were such a creation theory, that would be an aside. The point is, as Sober points out, Darwin rebuked at least a version of creationism.


    Again, you're equivocating a single creationist thesis with "creation theory" with all of its postulates.

    First, I’m not equivocating since that “single” creationist thesis is dominant in creation theories. Secondly, it’s irrelevant. Even if your characterization were correct, it does nothing to remove the religious assumptions. If Darwin rebukes even just *some* creation theories using religious assumptions, that still amounts to the use of religious assumptions. You’re raising red herrings.


    You can see Sober's actually interested on the "species separated by walls" whenever it comes from. Either from Darwin's colleagues or modern creationists. He could have added raëlians to the list. It doesn't matter.

    So what? It is still religious reasoning. This is just another red herring.


    "All characters must be accounted by only chance and adaptation". Where's God in that?

    You’re kidding right? If creationism operates “only chance and adaptation” then we’re making a religious assumption about how god creates. You seem to be working hard at avoiding the obvious.

    And let's not forget, what you're saying now is not what you said in your original OP. What happened to your "no creator makes the same mistake twice"? How does it fit?

    Well it’s obvious that you either don’t understand the paper, which would explain much of what you have said, or you are resorting to pretend ignorance.

    From the Sober paper: “Two of the facts mentioned earlier –that humans and monkeys have tailbones, and that human fetuses and fish have gill slits—are evidence for common ancestry precisely because tailbones and gill slits are useless in humans.”

    The whole idea behind Darwin’s Principle, as Sober calls it, is that separate ancestry requires the bad design to be created twice, so you have the square of a small number in the denominator of the likelihood ratio, whereas common ancestry requires the bad design to be created only once, so you have just the small number in the numerator of the likelihood ratio.

    ReplyDelete