It is essential to recognize that within mainstream biology, evolution, meaning descent from a common ancestor, is an accepted FACT. In other words, it is beyond any rational doubt that billions of years ago there were single celled organisms and over time these organisms have evolved into the organisms alive today.
Here the clinical psychologist, who deals with depression, suicide and the personality disorders, equates mainstream biology with rational thought. In other words, what evolutionists say goes. We must accept what they declare to be true, and we must reject what they declare to be false. Any other course is not rational.
It is remarkable, and indeed concerning, how deeply evolutionary metaphysics and dogma have penetrated the academy.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Hmmm, strange for him to say it is beyond any rational doubt since, as Plantinga points out, evolutionary naturalism renders 'rationality' impossible in the first place:
ReplyDeleteShould You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter
Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind
What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw
Alvin Plantinga - Science and Faith Conference - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlMK9Ejhb0
Philosopher Sticks Up for God
Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/books/alvin-plantingas-new-book-on-god-and-science.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.
~ Alvin Plantinga
Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth that he is purporting to give in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011
Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?)
Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
LOL!
ReplyDeleteI hope the irony isn't lost on anyone that the first person to reply is the psychologically retarded Creationist loony Batspit77.
It is essential to recognize that within mainstream biology, evolution, meaning descent from a common ancestor, is an accepted FACT.
ReplyDeleteJust don't ask them to provide empirical evidence for it.
National Velour
ReplyDeleteIt is essential to recognize that within mainstream biology, evolution, meaning descent from a common ancestor, is an accepted FACT.
Just don't ask them to provide empirical evidence for it.
Here's a good synopsis of the empirical evidence for evolution.
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
A good book that bridges the gap between a popular press book and a detailed scholarly textbook is S.J. Gould's
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
There are also millions of readily accessible scientific papers and thousands of textbooks documenting the detailed empirical evidence.
I know you've seen these resources offered multiple times, so why you feel compelled to still lie about there being no evidence is a mystery.
Lakatos - Exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’
Deletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit
Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/talk_origins_sp055281.html
Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin's speciation FAQ i.e. 'literature bluff'
Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00
A Primer on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – 2009
Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
http://www.discovery.org/a/10651
How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution032141.html
Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis – 2006
Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract
Here is how neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the fossil record;
Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html
The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID – Casey Luskin – Audio
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-03-26T14_56_42-07_00
Here is how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:
More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism – March 2010
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the032471.html
The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011
Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html
In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.
What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - April 2011
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-04-06T11_39_03-07_00
The deception (literature bluffing), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;
The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010
http://www.discovery.org/a/14251
Many more instances of Darwinism avoiding falsification here:
Darwin’s Predictions – Cornelius Hunter PhD.
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
Furthermore advances in quantum physics have falsified the materialistic foundation of neo-Darwinism:
DeleteFalsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting there is no way to rationally differentiate between a biosphere created by natural processes and a biosphere created by an abstract designer? If so, why?
Scott
ReplyDeletebecause
"A good craftsman leaves no traces"
Chinese saying
Eugen,
ReplyDeleteSo it's impossible to rationally differentiate because a Chinese saying says so? Really?
I like Chinese food.
ReplyDelete:)
Now seriously, you know we theists think there is a powerful Being, an Engineer of our reality. Some theists know for sure. I just think there is based on logic, science and intuition. I'm not so good with the Holy Book to use it as reference but I hear there is an interesting discussion in The Book of Job.
I read on atheist scientist's blog recently on percentage he is sure there is no God. I asked him if he is afraid of something as he is a bit older. Afraid of what happens when he kicks the bucket. He didn't answer.
Like this?
DeleteHey Eugen, do you know what happened to Beethoven when he died?
ReplyDeleteHe decomposed. :)
"He decomposed"
ReplyDeleteYes, recycling is important.
:)
Eugene: Now seriously, you know we theists think there is a powerful Being, an Engineer of our reality.
ReplyDeleteWhich represents one of the options I mentioned.
However, my question was if and why it wouldn't be possible to rationally differentiate between this option (a designer) and natural processes.
Do you see the difference?
"However, my question was if and why it wouldn't be possible to rationally differentiate between this option (a designer) and natural processes"
ReplyDeleteScott
It would be easy to set up experiment to test capabilities of nature vs. capabilities of an engineer. I can come up with few right away. Maybe we should even make a reality show.
Geoxus
Dilbert is fantastic.
I'm still not clear.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying it is possible to rationally differentiate between an abstract designer and natural processes. And we can do so because we can demonstrate both of there capabilities?
Exactly how does this work, in detail?
" Exactly how does this work, in detail? "
ReplyDeleteI have experiment idea for creating universe but it would be too hard. Experiment below is easier. Also this is very generous to nature as we help it with ready materials, temperature, agitation, selection, etc
Lets say we have a container full of concentrated amino acids and we provide some gentle agitation to the mix. We take sample once per month and see if any proteins are formed.
If there are proteins we isolate them and put in another container and provide agitation. Take sample from protein container once per month and examine if they self assembled into some structure.
If protein structures formed isolate them and put in another container etc
Experiment should run for many years. I understand nature had millions of years but even after few years with above simple experiment we would see some proteins and maybe structures. That is if nature alone is capable of creating them.
Maybe this is naive and simplistic. Somebody can correct me.
Yes, it's naive and simplistic.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we'd have creationists objecting because intelligence was involved in some way shape or form.
Second, you're assuming we should be able to simply extrapolate the conditions under which the most primitive forms of life evolved using some mechanical process. But this is inductivism, which as Popper pointed out, is a myth.
So, it isn't' that we lack evidence, as the evidence is all around us, inside of us, etc. What's scare is a theory that explains all of this evidence, not evidence. And we create theories via the process of conjecture and refutation.
As such, your expectation that "after few years with above simple experiment we would see some proteins and maybe structures", is naive and simplistic. It's inductivism to the core.
Second, you're assuming we should be able to simply extrapolate the conditions under which the most primitive forms of life evolved using some mechanical process.
DeleteHe's also assuming that we know what those conditions are. To find plausible conditions is one of the central tasks of OOL research.
Scott, Geoxus
ReplyDelete" First, we'd have creationists objecting because intelligence was involved in some way shape or form. "
I'm not your standard off the shelf creationist. I understand some intelligence needs to be involved. I'm layman but I think me and anybody honest can recognize when experiment is heavily engineered and guided. That's is just an exercise in chemical engineering.
Well, one of our main ingredients are proteins so that's the reason for the setup in my thought experiment. If I would like to find out if processors can self assemble than I would use some concentration of logic gates in containers with dielectric liquid. Logic gates should be prepared in such a way they can form weak connections. etc
If you guys have any ideas come forward.
As for Poper I didn't read him. Otoh, I did watch Deutch's video Scott recommended and I find it was pretty interesting.
I like physicists and astronomers, some of them are borderline bonkers.
I was very interested in those fields when I was young. Then I discovered that if I wanted girls I needed money fast, damn the long education.
Now I still don't have girls and I ran out of money. What happened? :) :)
Oh, come on... if you're a big boy you should be able to do your own homework, the claim was yours!
DeleteAnyway, if think it's interesting you're modelling a natural process, but not the design process. Perhaps you could work on that. ID refuses to do that by definition. I think there is one of the big fat problems with it. Even good ole Creation Sceince(TM) is more substantial.
Eugene: Well, one of our main ingredients are proteins so that's the reason for the setup in my thought experiment. If I would like to find out if processors can self assemble than I would use some concentration of logic gates in containers with dielectric liquid. Logic gates should be prepared in such a way they can form weak connections. etc.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you're assuming there should be some way to use induction to mechanically extrapolate exactly how the first primitive cells appeared using observations. But both Popper and Deutsch illustrates how this is a myth.
While I might have mentioned them before, I'd highly recommend The Logic of Scientific Discovery as a starting point for Popper, and both of Deutsch's books, which expands on Popper's work: The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity. In fact, the latter contains an entire chapter on creation.
All of which are available on amazon or iTunes bookstore.
Ugh, not iTunes.
DeleteI heard of Popper but I'm not familiar with his work or ideas.I'll investigate a bit online.
ReplyDeleteAnd contemporary philosophers complain all the time scientists seem to have got stuck in naïve Popperianism. There's a lot to catch up! I'm on it as well.
DeleteLook here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Look here:
ReplyDeletehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Thanks Geox , it will save me some time.