They’re Not Buying It
While evolutionists ascribe the public’s skepticism to ignorance and educational failures (and so evolutionists, of course, must have more power and control in order to set things straight) there is, as Neil deGrasse Tyson points out, one little problem: the greatest minds in history didn’t buy it and a non trivial percentage of today’s scientists also aren’t quite sure that astronomical entropy barriers have repeatedly been climbed an astronomical number of times by, err, random chance events. This is disturbing to Tyson and his fellow modern-day Epicureans for whom the world must have spontaneously formed but, as Tyson admits, their focus on the public’s skepticism is misplaced. How can they expect the lay audience to accept their message of chance creation of, well, everything, if all the elites are not on-board? The key number is not the percentage of unbelievers in the general public, but among scientists. As Tyson puts it: “How come this number isn’t zero?” [13:40 in this
video]
Caption for the picture "Clown sad. Umbrella made of cotton."
ReplyDeleteAstronomers are usually honest bunch. They are not afraid to say they don't know something. There is nothing wrong with with that.
Just recently I watched lecture by Karen Meech, astronomer from University of Hawaii.
https://webcast.stsci.edu/webcast/detail.xhtml?talkid=2825&parent=1
She specializes in planetary and comet research. At the end of her lecture on origins Earth's water , she has no problem saying nobody has a clue about origins and then joke about it.
There is something weird about De Grasse Tyson.
CH: As Tyson puts it: “How come this number isn’t zero?” [13:40 in this video]
ReplyDeleteJ: I watched that just now. What a brilliant way to intimidate people from even telling the truth on a survey. In the meanwhile, the atheists can't even non-arbitrarily define knowledge, or positive evidence, or warranted belief. The atheist view of science means that scientific methodology is inconsistent with teleology. The exact opposite is the case if science has anything to do with what humans have historically conceived of as POSITIVE evidence. If they have re-defined it recently, they would do well to articulate that definition so they won't seem so moronic to people who are still using conventional language to communicate with others. Even then, if the new definition is arbitrary in the sense that no one actually makes life choices based on their criteria for "positive" evidence, there is still no reason to value it. And if "positive" evidence means something that has no discernible value, why are we subsidizing that kind of research?
One can only ask why, given the unopposed cradle to grave indoctrination in evolutionism for the last 50 years or so (at least in the UK), why some 40% of the public still don't buy into the molecules to man by accident story. Could it be that they find the evidence they have heard unconvincing?
ReplyDeleteImagine what that number would be if legitimate scientific problems with Darwinism were actually discussed in schools and mainstream media?
No wonder the prospect of the Ham/Nye debate has attracted so much venom. and it hasn't even taken place yet!
Elwin Daniels: One can only ask why, given the unopposed cradle to grave indoctrination in evolutionism for the last 50 years or so (at least in the UK), why some 40% of the public still don't buy into the molecules to man by accident story. Could it be that they find the evidence they have heard unconvincing?
DeleteCorrect. Because that evidence isn't what's in standard science textbooks. Even intelligent educated creationists know little more than what's in their Bible study material. Trying showing an evolution chapter in a biology textbook to a creationist. You can lead a creationist to a science book, but you can't make them think.
CH: This is disturbing to Tyson and his fellow modern-day Epicureans for whom the world must have spontaneously formed but, as Tyson admits, their focus on the public’s skepticism is misplaced.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the world formed spontaneously. To clarify...
Cornelius, I’ll ask again: does a fertilized human egg receive assistance in the form of direct intercession, at every occasion, in the form of instructions of how to build another human being?
"Cornelius, I’ll ask again: does a fertilized human egg receive assistance in the form of direct intercession, at every occasion, in the form of instructions of how to build another human being?"
DeleteIf I were Cornelius I would ignore such a question too
Scott: I do not ascribe to any of these things [including that the world spontaneously arose];
DeleteCH: So if you don't believe the world spontaneously arose, then you must believe there was some assistance along the way somewhere. Can you describe that?
Scott: Do organisms currently receive "assistance" when building copies of themselves?
CH: [No response]
I'm simply being more specific, but it's the same question he ignored in this previous post.
Scott:
DeleteYour question is a non sequitur. Of course organisms receive "assistance." The environment provides them with the right kind of energy and chemicals they need and just happen to be able to make use of. If your response is "Yes, but that is because they evolved that way," then we're back to spontaneous origins which you said you don't ascribe to.
CH: Of course organisms receive "assistance." The environment provides them with the right kind of energy and chemicals they need and just happen to be able to make use of.
DeleteThis kind of response is why I was specific.
To rephrase, does a human fertilized egg receive assistance in the form of external instructions of how to build human beings?
Elijah: "Cornelius, I’ll ask again: does a fertilized human egg receive assistance in the form of direct intercession, at every occasion, in the form of instructions of how to build another human being?"
DeleteIf I were Cornelius I would ignore such a question too.
J: Exactly. The only sense that "assistance" has when explaining naturalistically is that events are caused. Is CH denying causality? Of course not. Scott is so confused it's mind-boggling.
Scott:
Deletedoes a human fertilized egg receive assistance in the form of external instructions of how to build human beings?
I can't remember. But for sake of discussion, let's say the answer is "no." Or, you can change your question to something else, like protein folding, to get your desired "no" answer. Which reminds me of:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/ard-louis-and-vitalism.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/protein-folding-and-evolution.html
Scott: does a human fertilized egg receive assistance in the form of external instructions of how to build human beings?
DeleteCH: I can't remember. But for sake of discussion, let's say the answer is "no." Or, you can change your question to something else, like protein folding, to get your desired "no" answer.
To be accurate, cells in in multicellular organisms receive instructions from *other cells* about when and how to differentiate themselves in a coordinated way. And the same can be said for any sort of instructions in a mother’s womb, etc.
My point is that I think we would both agree that it’s not *necessary* for a human fertilized egg to “phone home” to a unseen, biological equivalent of Microsoft Windows Update Service before it had the instructions of how to build another human. At the time they are needed, the instructions already exist in each cell, rather than arrive via direct intervention from some kind of external designer.
With me so far?
Now, with that clarification in mind, let’s return to your earlier response…
CH: The environment provides them with the right kind of energy and chemicals they need and just happen to be able to make use of.
Biological organisms represent adaptations of chemicals, etc into unique, concrete, complex features. They can “take advantage of them” because they contain the instructions of which specific transformations will result in specific eyes, limbs, brains, etc. This is in contrast to some other instructions that will result in some other eyes, limbs, brains, etc. or even a failed organism.
So, the origin of the unique, concrete biological adaptations in our biosphere is the origin of those instructions.
Still with me? If not, please indicate where your view differs, in detail?
In case it's not clear how this is relevant to your question, one's explanation for the origin of those instructions, or the lack there of, would indicate whether they actually thought those features spontaneously arose. This is because the origin of those biological features is the origin of those specific instructions.
DeleteIf some transformation isn’t prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent it from happening is knowing how. In the case of biological organisms, “knowing how” includes the instructions of how to transform chemicals into entire copies of organisms.
For example, if some designer wanted particular organisms to have those particular features, it would have had to put those instructions - how to build those very same features - in those organisms when it created them, so they could build copies of themselves without “phoning home” when they reproduced.
Right?
If the designer didn't posses the knowledge of what instructions were needed and put them there, those instructions would have spontaneously appeared when the organism was created.
With me so far?
Scott:
DeleteWith me so far?
No, I'm not. If you do not believe that the species spontaneously arose, then by definition you must believe in some external help. From what you have said, I can't tell if you are saying you do, or do not, believe in some external help.
Scott, SA'ists don't deny that lots of naturalistic evolution has occurred since the precambrian. The questions are, what criticism are SA'ists and UCA'ists using against one another, and what makes us think those criticisms have any relevance to useful explanations? SA'ists and UCA'ists believe there are and have been critters "out there." They both believe whatever evolution occurred was caused. Neither can predict ONE novel observation more successfully than another starting with what we know from empirical research. And yet one wants to suppress the expression of the other in academic settings.
DeleteIf those suppressors want to say that only naturalistic theories have the ability to be applied usefully, fine. But that's not what they say. They say they have over-whelming POSITIVE evidence for their view. That's just FLAT wrong.
Scott: With me so far?
DeleteCH: No, I'm not. If you do not believe that the species spontaneously arose, then by definition you must believe in some external help. From what you have said, I can't tell if you are saying you do, or do not, believe in some external help.
My point is, you haven't defined exactly what you mean by “external help”, what form it takes, or, if when taken seriously, it would itself have spontaneously arose itself in a given design scenario.
In other words, having the quality of “external help”, as you appear to be using it, is similar to having the quality of "dryness".
This is why I keep asking you where you start to disagree and where your view differs, in detail.
So, exactly where in the above do we disagree?
Jeff: They say they have over-whelming POSITIVE evidence for their view. That's just FLAT wrong.
DeleteYes, Jeff. I'd agree that they would be mistaken about that, should anyone actually believe it. But, we'll always mistaken to some degree. Yet, this doesn't mean that we haven't made any progress, as you're suggesting.
The same evidence can be used in a critical way. So, they have a theory that has withstood an overwhelming amount of empirical criticism, even if they do not realize it.
In fact, Popper separates the logical problem of induction with the philosophical problem of induction, for this very reason. Specifically, part of his criticism is that we pay attention to the steps that people actually take, rather what they think they must be "obviously" doing.
This is why I keep asking you to walk me though the steps you actually take to define the boundary between non-basic beliefs, that require justification, and basic beliefs, which supposedly do not.
Here, I’m essentially asking CH to do the same thing. But, in this case, I'm asking him to define what he mean by assistance, what form it takes, etc., and whether that would qualify as spontaneous in difference scenarios.
Scott: So, they have a theory that has withstood an overwhelming amount of empirical criticism, even if they do not realize it.
DeleteJ: Scott, all the ID hypotheses have also withstood criticism. That's the problem. No criticism that would rule out the ID hypotheses wouldn't ALSO rule out the naturalisitic UCA hypothesis. They just don't understand how logic works.
Disagree? Give me an example of a criticism that naturalistic UCA survives and an ID hypothesis doesn't other than the mere application of the metaphysical assertion that libertarian free-will doesn't exist? And why would we use that criticism in tax-subsidized research when we don't use it in tax-subsidized courts?
Jeff: Scott, all the ID hypotheses have also withstood criticism. That's the problem.
DeleteYou’re still under the mistaken assumption that scientific theories are just logical possibilities. As such, no criticism can be devised to specifically indicate one theory is better than the other.
From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism…
In this sense, critical rationalism turns the normal understanding of a traditional rationalist, and a realist, on its head. Especially the view that a theory is better if it is less likely to be true is in direct opposition to the traditional positivistic view, which holds that one should seek for theories that have a high probability.[1] Popper notes that this "may illustrate Schopenhauer's remark that the solution of a problem often first looks like a paradox and later like a truism". Even a highly unlikely theory that conflicts current observation (and is thus false, like "all swans are white") must be considered to be better than one which fits observations perfectly, but is highly probable (like "all swans have a color"). This insight is the crucial difference between naive falsificationism and critical rationalism. The lower probability theory is favoured by critical rationalism because the higher the informative content of a theory the lower will be its probability, for the more information a statement contains, the greater will be the number of ways in which it may turn out to be false. The rationale behind this is simply to make it as easy as possible to find out whether the theory is false so that it can be replaced by one that is closer to the truth. It is not meant as a concession to justificationist epistemology, like assuming a theory to be "justifiable" by asserting that it is highly unlikely and yet fits observation.
However, ID’s designer is abstract and has no limitations. As such, it doesn’t prohibit anything from occurring and has no *necessary* consequences for the current state of the system. This makes it virtually impossible to find out if it is false. For example, ID could be true, yet the designer could have wanted it to appear as if everything evolved naturally. ID’s information content is extremely low because the quality of design, as it is used in ID, is the equivalent of “wanted it to be that way”, which is like the quality of “dryness”.
So, ID is basically a logical possibility, which we cannot rule out.
On the other hand, there are many ways for Biological Darwinism to be found false. This is because the theory consists of a very long, hard to vary chain of independently formed explanations. You cannot easily vary it in a fundamental way without significantly effecting it’s ability to explain what we observe.
So, again, this sort of argument is parochial in that it assumes there is no existing, well conceived philosophy of science that supports evolutionary theory. But this is simply false.
Scott, everything you say is pontification sense nothing to you is obviously true, including whether apparent memories occur. But let's take this whopper of yours:
Delete"However, ID’s designer is abstract and has no limitations. As such, it doesn’t prohibit anything from occurring and has no *necessary* consequences for the current state of the system. This makes it virtually impossible to find out if it is false."
Alright. Assume there was one ancestor of all extant and fossil-inferred species. What is occurring now that could possibly falsify that belief? Likewise, assume adaptive biological functionality is teleological functionality in the sense that libertarian free-will was involved in the instantiation of the sequences that condition those functions. What is occurring now that could possibly falsify that belief? You have deluded yourself if you think UCA story-telling is any different than ID story-telling in terms of the issues you mentioned. Both kinds of story-telling are conceivable. But teleological story-telling at least has the advantage of not NEEDING to be consistent with other inferred laws of physics/chemistry. Because libertarian free-will is not deterministic in the first place. Naturalistic UCA story-telling, on the other hand, needs to BE consistent with other inferred laws of the goal is to maintain breadth of predictive explanation. But how, pray tell, given our current knowledge, do we have a clue whether any posited UCA history is consistent with natural laws? And if UCA history is NOT the result of natural laws, then there is nothing predictive about historical evolution--even the future continuation of evolution. You don't understand the nature of explanation/prediction at all.
Jeff: Alright. Assume there was one ancestor of all extant and fossil-inferred species. What is occurring now that could possibly falsify that belief?
DeleteJeff, you’re still assuming naive falsificationism, rather than critical rationalism.
Even a highly unlikely theory that conflicts current observation (and is thus false, like "all swans are white") must be considered to be better than one which fits observations perfectly, but is highly probable (like "all swans have a color"). This insight is the crucial difference between naive falsificationism and critical rationalism.
Under CR, we adapt theories that have withstood the most criticism. And we retain theories that are even found to conflict with current observations to some degree because they have the most informational content. An example is general relativity. We know it is incomplete and contains errors to some degree because it conflicts with quantum mechanics at the small scale. So, it’s not a question of if it’s false, but to what degree and where. Should some other theory come along that explains the same observations better, or even more observations, we’ll adopt it. But not until then.
Again, there are many ways for Biological Darwinism to be found false. This is because the theory consists of a very long, hard to vary chain of independently formed explanations. You cannot easily vary it in a fundamental way without significantly effecting it’s ability to explain what we observe. An example would be that biological complexity appeared all at once or in the order of most complex to least complex. Such an order is incompatible with the idea that knowledge of how to build organisms was genuinely created over time by variation and selection.
The transformations that represent biological adaptations cannot be made unless the requisite knowledge is present.
There could be two ancestors, rather than one. However, UCA is a particular model of biological Darwinism we have created for the expressed purpose of being found in error with observations. That’s how we make progress. This wouldn’t mean that the underlying explanation behind that theory (biological complexity emerges from variation and selection) is false.
Jeff: Likewise, assume adaptive biological functionality is teleological functionality in the sense that libertarian free-will was involved in the instantiation of the sequences that condition those functions. What is occurring now that could possibly falsify that belief?
DeleteExactly what does that mean, Jeff?
For example, I want to design a drug that cures cancer. According to you, I just exercised my libertarian free-will. Yet, despite my desire, no such drug has appeared. Now multiply that by hundreds of researchers over decades. Still, no such drug has appeared.
So, it would seem that merely “wanting things to turn out a specific way” isn’t sufficient, in practice. And, when we rationally criticize the process, we find out that ID and creationism grossly underestimate the role of knowledge in design. When we change our preferences, we adopt new theories about how the world works.
We can explain the absence of such a drug, up to now, due to the fact that we have yet to create the knowledge of how to cure cancer. And, right at this moment, this knowledge genuinely might not exist anywhere in the universe. When we do have a cure, we can explain it due to having created that knowledge. Furthermore, we continue to develop treatments that incrementally improve and can even cause a complete remission of specific kinds of cancer if treated early enough. We have made progress, despite not having a exhaustive explanation.
If something is not prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from doing it is *knowing how*. And the majority of transformations we are interested in are not prohibited by the laws of physics.
So, the important question becomes, what is the best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge?
I think Theists have it wrong: they shouldn’t pray for God to miraculously heal people who currently have diseases, or argue that stoping suffering would require God to go around performing perpetual miracles. If he existed, God could just impart the knowledge of what transformations are necessary to cure those diseases. The same can be said about making major changes to our planet, solar system, galaxy and even the universe.
IOW, “God wanted it that way” greatly underestimates the important role that knowledge plays.
Jeff: But teleological story-telling at least has the advantage of not NEEDING to be consistent with other inferred laws of physics/chemistry. Because libertarian free-will is not deterministic in the first place.
DeleteNo wonder why you’re confused. That’s not an advantage, Jeff.
That’s because the explanation in question is only tied to outcomes by the claim itself rather than a chain of long, hard to vary, independently formed chain of explanations. “That’s just what some designer must have wanted” is a bad explanation because it’s extremely shallow.
Jeff: Naturalistic UCA story-telling, on the other hand, needs to BE consistent with other inferred laws of the goal is to maintain breadth of predictive explanation.
That is an advantage, as it would have more information content and have more ways to be found false.
Jeff: You don't understand the nature of explanation/prediction at all.
If Darwinism genuinely creates new knowledge, how could we predict its impact in the future? Why would you expect that to be even possible?
Got it Scott. The evolutionary creation of new information renders past and future biological feature origins completely unpredictable/explicable. So why are we spending all these millions of dollars again? What value does it have for the subsidizers, again?
DeleteScott: So, it would seem that merely “wanting things to turn out a specific way” isn’t sufficient, in practice.
DeleteJ: A desire is not an LFW choice. At least two CONFLICTING desires are necessary CONDITIONS of a free-will choice.
Scott: I think Theists have it wrong: they shouldn’t pray for God to miraculously heal people who currently have diseases,
J: I don't know any theists who think MERELY praying is effectual when there's something we already believe, on inductive grounds, we can already DO! You don't get out much, do you?
Scott: or argue that stoping suffering would require God to go around performing perpetual miracles.
J: Scott, that's obviously false. Specific instances of suffering is stopped all the time. And the only kind of miracle that would definitely stop all suffering is the elimination of LFW in those cases where a capacity to cause suffering could otherwise be voluntarily acted upon. You are clearly oblivious to how the average theist thinks.
J: I don't know many theists
Scott: So, it would seem that merely “wanting things to turn out a specific way” isn’t sufficient, in practice.
DeleteJeff: A desire is not an LFW choice. At least two CONFLICTING desires are necessary CONDITIONS of a free-will choice.
I’m not following you, Jeff. Being finite beings, cancer researchers don’t have conflicted desires about how to spend their time? There are many diseases they could want to design a drug to cure, such as Alzheimer's or diabetes, etc.
Also, are you suggesting the designer of our biosphere was conflicted about what to design? Since ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, it doesn’t have to worry about choosing which drug to design due to limited time, resources, etc. Choosing to design one drug one doesn’t necessarily exclude designing any other drugs, etc. So, what is the conflict?
Scott: I think Theists have it wrong: they shouldn’t pray for God to miraculously heal people who currently have diseases,
Jeff: I don't know any theists who think MERELY praying is effectual when there's something we already believe, on inductive grounds, we can already DO!
Again, do you actually read what I write? I didn’t say “merely”. I know people have and do pray that God should heal people suffering from cancer. Nor is curing cancer something we can already do, because we do not yet have the knowledge.
Scott: […] or argue that stoping suffering would require God to go around performing perpetual miracles.
Jeff: Scott, that's obviously false.
It is? Then why did Dinesh D’Souza use that argument in regards to natural suffering when he debated Bart Ehrman? See: https://vimeo.com/36402852
Jeff: And the only kind of miracle that would definitely stop all suffering is the elimination of LFW in those cases where a capacity to cause suffering could otherwise be voluntarily acted upon.
Again, that wouldn’t stop natural suffering. See above.
Jeff: You are clearly oblivious to how the average theist thinks.
Dinesh D’Souza isn’t an average theist?
Scott: are you suggesting the designer of our biosphere was conflicted about what to design?
DeleteJ: No; WHETHER to create.
Scott: So, what is the conflict?
J: Whether, due to the unpredictability of free-will choices, creation will be less than hoped for.
Scott: Again, that wouldn’t stop natural suffering. See above.
J: Indeed. My only point is that some suffering is avoidable apart from divine intervention, just as you claim. I know no theists/ID'ists who disagree with you in that respect.
Scott: Dinesh D’Souza isn’t an average theist?
J: Not as far as I can tell. He seems very confused to me. Other folks are confused to. But seemingly because they haven't give much thought to the matter. Dinesh doesn't have that excuse.
Jeff: Whether, due to the unpredictability of free-will choices, creation will be less than hoped for.
DeleteAgain, the designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. It doesn't have a limited amount of time to get it right or limited attention to get what it hoped for. Nor does it have limited resources that it must conserve. There is no reason why it couldn't just try again, and again, and again.
It could procrastinate for an infinity and always have time to do it later.
So, I still don't see the conflict.
Scott: Again, the designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. It doesn't have a limited amount of time to get it right or limited attention to get what it hoped for. Nor does it have limited resources that it must conserve. There is no reason why it couldn't just try again, and again, and again.
DeleteIt could procrastinate for an infinity and always have time to do it later.
So, I still don't see the conflict.
J: The Designer most people believe in is a social entity. As such, I don't see how to explain an inferred world of extra-self entities unless the Designer creates for at least ONE other social being with whom the Designer is already in a social relationship. Otherwise, we're left trying to account for an ORIGIN of the Designer's social nature after an infinite past of a lack thereof. For why would a Designer creating for social experience put it off?
That being the case, it is that capacity for social satisfaction that could explain why a Designer would be longsuffering and endure for the sake of that other social being creation exists in part for. Because the nature of that other social being might be such that the degree to which it becomes a beneficiary of creation is increased thereby.
IOW, a Designer that doesn't account for a REAL moral order is also incapable of accounting for warranted belief. Because both require a SYMPATHETIC Designer to account for the relevant correspondence of those beliefs that satisfy us to the truth of those beliefs. Not many people find much satisfaction in trying to believe that all naturally-caused (2nd nature, by habit, i.e.) beliefs in extra-self entities are illusory.
In short, the Designer MUST have limits to be explanatory. I've already said that the Designer MUST be motivated (by sympathetic sentience) to render the our modes of inference correspondent WITH reality. Anyone who posits a limitless Designer is just saying the Designer has no nature. And that is to say that the Designer can't explain anything.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't the number zero? Because not all scientist are savants.
ReplyDelete