tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1277640164371371410..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Enduring Warfare Thesis ThesesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71773224453056667652011-01-31T14:55:52.111-08:002011-01-31T14:55:52.111-08:00I'd also note that If you're as software e...I'd also note that If you're as software engineer you may be familiar with the concept in my previous comment. <br /><br />For example, in writing a mobile or desktop application you're solving a particular problem for users. The development process represents a number of steps you must take to solve that problem. With each step, your ability to solve the user's problem becomes more complete. <br /><br />However, in a majority of cases, your application needs to call out to it's environment to interact with user input and output devices, storage systems, etc. You do this by calling API (Application Programming Interface) methods or functions provided by the operating system that is running your application. <br /><br />While you likely have documentation that gives a brief description of what each API does and the parameters it takes, in the case of commercial libraries you may not have access to it's implementation details. In these cases, you lack an explanation as to how that API actually performs the task at hand.<br /><br />Most of the time this isn't a problem for developers. In fact, this sort of abstraction can be an advantage since the API provider can optimize the API's implementation to without breaking your application. When the APIs you call get faster, your program gets faster without any work on your part. When you move that code from the desktop to a mobile device, you don't have to worry if it's running on an Intel Core 2 or an ARM Cortex 9 CPU. <br /><br />However, occasionally, your may application will crash after calling an API when passing a specific parameter value. Or it may might receive intermittently wrong data, no data, etc. This is problem because it represents an incomplete step in solving the users problem. Furthermore, since it's code you didn't write, you can't know exactly what steps the API is uses internally to provide that functionality. <br /><br />At this point, you could throw up you hands and claim there's nothing else you can do. Since the API is essentially a black box of which the contents you cannot observe, we can't make any progress in solving the users problem.<br /><br />But, as a developer, you know that software is not magic, it's fundamentally comprehensible. <br /><br />As such, you can create multiple hypothetical logical models of how the API could have implemented that task. Then, based on these logical models, you can devise different input parameter values which you feed to the API and see how it reacts, such as changing the output. <br /><br />Using this process, the data you feed in and the output you receive will likely eventually favor one of these logical models as representing an explanation to how the API performs the task. <br /><br />Armed with this information, you might be able to create a workaround that allows you to exploit some aspect of the APIs internals to perform the task. Or you can pre-process / filter the data as to avoid the problem. At a minimum, you can use this series of inputs to tell if the underlying implementation has been changed or fixed in a newer or older version, which you could use instead. <br /><br />If the former, this API no longer presents a stumbling block in solving the client problem. If the latter or it's predecessor, you've made progress in the right direction. <br /><br />Note that in both cases, you didn't to have an exact knowledge of how the API performed the task. You did not open the black box to observe how it actually operated. A logical model was all that was required. Even then, the model was incomplete as it didn't necessary reflect all of the steps the API took. <br /><br />Even if it's possible that the details of the logical model represented a complete different set of observations than was actually found inside the API, in reality, there was still something about that model that represented real knowledge about how that API actually worked. We know this because we were able exploit it that knowledge to make progress in solving the user's problem. <br /><br />That knowledge represents an explanation of how that API works.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36990036707886995252011-01-31T14:33:12.994-08:002011-01-31T14:33:12.994-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32465894428872473682011-01-31T14:07:39.555-08:002011-01-31T14:07:39.555-08:00Cornelius,
Nope, you used "circumstantial&qu...Cornelius,<br /><br />Nope, you used "circumstantial" as an attempt to hand wave the importance of the evidence. When I told you so you started playing with the semantics of the word.<br /><br />Your new first non-answer summarizes as: "affirming the consequent." Well, when several lines of evidence agree, it is no longer affirming the consequent. I knew there would be a point where I could let your fans know what you are doing: in science guys, we test a candidate theory again and again in several ways. Each instance by itself is not necessarily "the test," as if we had only one, we could still doubt the candidate theory instead of "affirming the consequent." But once several lines agree, well, saying something like "he affirmed the consequent 20 times" is ludicrous. If Cornelius says this he means that somebody gave him 20 evidences for evolution.<br /><br /><i>(ii) you ignore myriad problematic evidences</i><br /><br />Curiously enough you did not mention a single one of these "myriad problematic evidences" against the common ancestry of humans and the other apes (other than your pretended misunderstanding of genetics). You had to go fishing outside trying to get me running after a red-herring so that your fans would not notice that you actually had nothing against human evolution. Had I gone after the red-herrngs (as tempting as they are, since they are answerable), your fans would have thought you answered something. Yet, let us take note: you moved the goal posts, sent red-herrings, misrepresented population genetics, added a non-sequitur (pointed out by nanobot74--thanks!) ...<br /><br />Oh and lately you tried to dismiss the evidence as mere similarities between humans and chimps. I did not present similarities alone. Biogeographical data, and how it lead us to find fossil hominids, is not similarity (unless you want to play semantic games), the fossil record of hominids with intermediate characteristics is not a similarity. Parasitic insertions are not mere similarities except, again, if you will try semantic games. An insertion in common attest for common ancestry given what we know about these parasites. Even those cases you misrepresent as "conflicting" actually support common ancestry.<br /><br />I guess the game is over Cornelius. You lose. Evolution is a fact as far as humans and the other apes are concerned. We can play further into evolution next time and see if you can produce anything at that point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71997533409801360882011-01-31T13:34:11.205-08:002011-01-31T13:34:11.205-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91158969208994157922011-01-31T10:03:02.102-08:002011-01-31T10:03:02.102-08:00Again, as part of his attempt to prop open the doo...Again, as part of his attempt to prop open the door for the supernatural, I'm suggesting that Cornelius is presenting a false dilemma. <br /><br />Either everything is "just a dream" or you're a realist. The problem is that, as I've illustrated above with the planetarium example, one can draw a boundary at any arbitrary point and claim that further knowledge is unobtainable by via human reasoning. <br /><br />So, rather than drawing a boundary around his brain / soul, as solipsist do, or the earth, as The Inquisition did, Dr Hunter has drawn a boundary at biological complexity. <br /><br />Of course, there will be some who will say that solipsism and its variants are still plausible in that they cannot be proven false or ruled out by experiment. So did we actually achieve anything by calling solipsism indefensible?<br /><br />But this question implies an assumption. <br /><br />Again, to quote CH: <br /><br /><b>No, that endorsement was *not* only for the sake of argument. Naturalism + realism is fine. But then you either forfeit completeness, or you need metaphysics to underwrite having all three.</b><br /><br />What Cornelius is suggesting is that theories are ranked in order of decreasing reliability: mathematical, scientific, then philosophical. Of course, this assumption is, itself, based on philosophical arguments, of which are classified as being least reliable! We can say the same regarding inductivism, which suggests we can be absolutely certain of mathematical arguments because they are deductive, reasonably sure about scientific arguments because they are inductive, and eternally undecided in regards to philosophical arguments, which are viewed as a matter of taste. <br /><br />But this hierarchy isn't applicable for <b>explanations</b>. This is because explanations are justified by their ability to explain phenomena better than rival explanations, rather than justified by the means they were derived. A prediction or assertion that cannot be defended might still be true, but an explanation that cannot be defended no longer meets the definition of an explanation.<br /><br />Great apes and human beings do not share abstract features, they share concrete features. The phenomena we're attempting to explain is why we share these specific features, rather than some other specific features. Why do we see the concrete patterns in biological complexity that we observe, rather than some other patterns we do not observe. <br /><br />These observations can provide us a reliable means to discern between competing explanations of biological complexity; just as I've illustrated we can discern between solipsism an reality, The Inquisitions implied theory of planetary motion and Galileo's heliocentrism, etc.<br /><br />Intelligent design doesn't explain the concrete similarities we share. That's just what the designer must have wanted. ID cannot go beyond an abstract designer. But this is yet another arbitrary boundary, which is a variant of solipsism.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28427250784176078782011-01-30T14:06:46.605-08:002011-01-30T14:06:46.605-08:00CH,
"Furthermore, if you can't evolve eve...CH,<br />"Furthermore, if you can't evolve even a protein, then how are you going to turn a prehistoric ape-like species from millions of years ago into a human?"<br /><br />This is a non-sequitur, as there are no de novo novel proteins in humans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50758703622661812302011-01-30T04:29:30.178-08:002011-01-30T04:29:30.178-08:00Hunter:
Furthermore, if you can't evolve even...Hunter:<br /><br /><i>Furthermore, if you can't evolve even a protein, then how are you going to turn a prehistoric ape-like species from millions of years ago into a human? It is a basic tenet of science to consider *all* the evidence, not to cull the evidence that supports my theory and ignore the rest.</i><br /><br />A creationist canard: “If you don't know everything, how can you know anything?” On the contrary, it is a tenet of science to focus efforts as much as possible on narrowly defined questions. You are demanding completeness of evolutionary science. But evolutionary science does not claim completeness anymore than chemistry does.<br /><br /><i>Or as with evolutionists, is science supposed to assume all phenomena go according to natural laws, so completeness and realism become non issues?</i><br /><br />Precisely. Has it escaped your notice that all of science operates exactly in that manner? (Realism being taken in the Hunterian sense of including the supernatural.)Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20086653860312596022011-01-30T04:16:42.865-08:002011-01-30T04:16:42.865-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45646124020589747032011-01-30T04:03:53.492-08:002011-01-30T04:03:53.492-08:00Hunter:
The problem with evolution is that it rul...Hunter:<br /><br /><i>The problem with evolution is that it rules *in* the supernatural. It is rationalistic beliefs about the metaphysical that underwrite evolution's mandate of method, realism and completeness simultaneously.</i><br /><br />Hold on. I smell a grotesque conflation of the term “supernatural” with the term “metaphysics.” You’ve admitted that evolution’s method is naturalism, which rules out the supernatural. Insofar as biologists practice naturalism in their experimental work, your claim that supernatural beliefs, whether or not “taken for granted,” are essential elements of that practice, is unsupported.<br /><br /><i>Now evolutionists insist that science must allow only explanations that are testable, naturalistic, and so forth. IOW, they restrict their method to MN. That's fine insofar as it goes. But they also insist that evolution is a fact.</i><br /><br />Some do. Some may not. In any case, I haven’t found that claim to be an essential element of everyday empirical biological research that employs an evolutionary heuristic. The papers I read in the primary scientific literature treat evolution as an hypothesis continually being tested.<br /><br /><i>And they insist evolution accounts for everything. We just had S. Hawkings telling us it is now unquestionable that even the entire universe evolved naturalistically, including the Big Bang. All of biology, all of cosmology, even something as sublime as consciousness is not beyond its purview.</i><br /><br />Another bizarre conflation. Hawking is not a biologist! Everyday empirical biology research makes specific claims based on hypothesis testing. In that respect it’s no different from everyday empirical chemistry research. The Big Bang is beyond its purview. <br /><br /><b>Consciousness may be sublime, but it is not beyond the purview of neuroscience. Why should it be?</b><br /><br /><i>So evolutionists have method, realism and completeness.</i><br /><br />Yes, that’s your repeated claim. But I repeat: neither realism nor completeness is entailed by everyday empirical biology research employing an evolutionary heuristic. I base that on the ever-growing mountain of empirical evidence in the primary scientific literature which lays before you.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58951981510318174502011-01-29T16:47:54.511-08:002011-01-29T16:47:54.511-08:00Negative Entropy:
(ii) you ignore myriad proble...Negative Entropy: <br /><br /><br />(ii) you ignore myriad problematic evidences<br /><br />I mentioned the problem of evolving proteins, as an example of a basic, important evolutionary problem you are ignoring. Yet you dismissed this problem as too hard. Your point was that, regardless of such problems, our evolutionary relationship with apes is a no-brainer. You wrote:<br /><br />===<br />I would also appreciate it if you focused on the issues at hand, instead of jumping all over the place to harder to explain phenomena such as origin of the first protein, while denying the obvious: that we are relatives of the other apes.<br />===<br /><br />What is obvious is that we share similarities with the ape. You have consistently been conflating *similarity* with *evolutionary relationship.* Those are two different things. That humans and chimps, or any other pair of species, are highly similar does not mean they share an evolutionary relationship. This is simple logic that you seem to be lacking in your evaluation of the evidence. Instead, your evaluation is biased to favor evolution, even if that means engaging in fallacy.<br /><br />Furthermore, if you can't evolve even a protein, then how are you going to turn a prehistoric ape-like species from millions of years ago into a human? It is a basic tenet of science to consider *all* the evidence, not to cull the evidence that supports my theory and ignore the rest.<br /><br />You have failed to support your claim that the evidence makes evolution an obvious fact. And that's putting it kindly.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88260873641977886402011-01-29T16:47:35.528-08:002011-01-29T16:47:35.528-08:00Negative Entropy:
===
You still have to learn th...Negative Entropy: <br /><br />===<br />You still have to learn the meaning of circumstantial. When so many avenues of evidence point to our common ancestry with the other apes, it is not circumstantial. <br />===<br /><br />What you mean is that when substantial evidence agrees then we have higher confidence. The evidence itself does not change from circumstantial to direct, if the overall case is getting better. You criticize me for misusing the word, but in fact you consistently misuse the word "circumstantial."<br /><br />===<br />You did not show a single point that falsified the evidence I presented.<br />===<br /><br />Agreed. The evidence you discussed is quite real. The problem is in your narrow view that the evidence powerfully supports evolution such that there is no reasonable doubt about evolution. Even if you assessments of the evidence were spot on, your conclusion would still be fallacious. Verified predictions do not prove a theory. You are committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.<br /><br />But it is worse, because (i) the evidences are not as good as you describe them to be and (ii) you ignore myriad problematic evidences. Here are some examples.<br /><br />(i) the evidences are not as good as you describe them to be.<br /><br />You present the fusion event which is evident in human chromosome 2. It would have been a problem for evolution if apes and humans had different number of chromosomes without any fusion events. We do have fewer chromosomes, but a fusion event was discovered. So evolution dodged a bullet. Great, we can erase a problem. But the fusion event *itself* has nothing to do with evolution. We infer that such an event occurred, but there is no need for evolution to be true for the event to occur. So the evidence is interesting, and evolution dodges a bullet. But there certainly is nothing powerful here in support of the theory. Yet you describe this evidence as demonstrating an evolutionary relationship:<br /><br />"The chromosome fusion is yet another example that shows that our relationship with the other apes is evident even when examining the most catastrophic of our molecular differences."<br /><br />A similarity does not demonstrate an evolutionary relationship. You are misrepresenting the evidence. The fact that we share the same number of chromosomes with apes, or that we have a similar body plan, or that species share the same genetic code, or that different species of fish share similar gills, etc, do not demonstrate evolution. Yes, these similarities are predictions of evolution, so we have successful predictions. But you are again affirming the consequent to conclude these demonstrate evolutionary relationships.<br /><br />continued ...Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46937572623710358582011-01-29T16:03:43.951-08:002011-01-29T16:03:43.951-08:00second opinion:
===
How do I determine that my me...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />How do I determine that my method fits my phenomena? How do I determine what a naturalistic phenomenon is? Isn't that circular?<br />===<br /><br />By the way, in this post I presented a view of intelligent design as addressing these questions:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/sympathetic-view-of-intelligent-design.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2181263081355619412011-01-29T15:46:15.249-08:002011-01-29T15:46:15.249-08:00second opinion:
===
I have to admit that I am a l...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />I have to admit that I am a little bit lost here:<br /><br />“One way to remedy this is to restrict your science to those phenomena that fit your method. If you mandate naturalism, for instance, then you can have realism *if* you analyze only naturalistic phenomena. “<br /><br />How do I determine that my method fits my phenomena? How do I determine what a naturalistic phenomenon is? Isn't that circular?<br />===<br /><br />Good questions. I don't have easy answers, but I suspect it need not be circular. For instance, one way to determine that my method fits my phenomena would be evaluate the resulting theory/explanation in terms of accuracy and simplicity. As I explain at www.DarwinsPredictions.com, a theory can always be accurate if simplicity is disregarded. And vice-versa. What scientists seek are explanations that are both reasonably simple and reasonbly accurate. So if a theory fails at this, then a tentative conclusion could be that the method isn't right.<br /><br /><br />===<br />Isn't science defined as the study of "natural phenomena"? Isn't science due to that definition automatically complete irrespective of the method used?<br />===<br /><br />Or you could say science due to that definition is automatically *in*complete, in that non natural phenomena are excluded from study. Another way to define science is that its explanations are restricted to natural causes. But both definitions leaves open the question of completeness. Is science supposed to analyze all phenomena and ignore the issue of realism? Or is science supposed to divine what is and isn't a natural phenomena? Or as with evolutionists, is science supposed to assume all phenomena go according to natural laws, so completeness and realism become non issues?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29054158917376184892011-01-29T15:09:23.557-08:002011-01-29T15:09:23.557-08:00Cornelius Hunter:
I have to admit that I am a lit...Cornelius Hunter:<br /><br />I have to admit that I am a little bit lost here:<br /><br />“One way to remedy this is to restrict your science to those phenomena that fit your method. If you mandate naturalism, for instance, then you can have realism *if* you analyze only naturalistic phenomena. “<br /><br />How do I determine that my method fits my phenomena? How do I determine what a naturalistic phenomenon is? Isn't that circular? Isn't science defined as the study of "natural phenomena"? Isn't science due to that definition automatically complete irrespective of the method used?<br /><br />“But they also insist that evolution is a fact. “<br /><br />Okay, maybe you could clarify that. Two statements:<br /><br />1) Gravity is a fact.<br />2) The theory of gravity is a fact.<br /><br />Now are these two statements violating the triangle? If I make any of these statements, am I claiming methodological naturalism, realism and completeness at the same time?second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40209570957296510582011-01-29T13:05:32.846-08:002011-01-29T13:05:32.846-08:00CH" All of these are unequivocally circumstan...CH" <b>All of these are unequivocally circumstantial evidences -- there is no question about this. I mean, for those interested in what is a fact, as evolutionists seem to be, it is a fact that these evidences are circumstantial. As evolutionists put it, It is beyond any "reasonable doubt." It is like gravity, nay even more certain than gravity. It would be irrational to doubt that these evidences are circumstantial. And yet …</b><br /><br />Cornelius, I'll ask yet again. <br /><br />Can you explain how "what we observe shows [falling objects and the motion of the planets are caused by a single, uniform, natural force] to be a fact?"<br /><br />How are falling apples and moving planets not circumstantial evidence? <br /><br />Yes. We can predict their motions by taking into account their mass, but, as I've mentioned several times before, predictions represent an underlying explanation of a theory. They are not the theory itself. <br /><br />This seems to be yet another indication that you've mistaken predictions of scientific theories with empirical mandates of reality. <br /><br /><b>Evolutionists are so convinced evolution is a fact they cannot critically examine the evidences. </b><br /><br />Since physicists are so convinced that gravity is a fact they cannot critically examine the evidences. <br /><br />We observe violations of gravitational theory at the very small scale (When gravity interacts with the strong nuclear force) and very large scale (at extremely hight energies.) We do not have a working theory of quantum gravity. No one has observed the curvature of space and time. We do not feel gravity, we feel our bodies pushing down on the earth's surface, etc., ad nauseum.<br /><br />After all, the phenomena of apples falling an planets moving could be due to one or more intelligent agents that pull and push objects according to their mass. Or it could be that gravity is actually unstable, but some intelligent agent constantly intercedes to offset the variation. <br /><br />Of course, In both cases, this intelligence just so happened to intercede in a way that faithfully mimics mathematically models of general relatively.<br /><br /><b>They cannot think straight about this. It is just so obvious to them that the evidence isn't even circumstantial.</b><br /><br />However, in the case of gravity, physicists are thinking straight? It's obvious to physicists that falling apples and moving planets are not circumstantial evidence?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30563330749656668512011-01-29T13:00:28.185-08:002011-01-29T13:00:28.185-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57112165042763867192011-01-29T12:02:33.500-08:002011-01-29T12:02:33.500-08:00Cornelius,
You still have to learn the meaning of...Cornelius,<br /><br />You still have to learn the meaning of circumstantial. When so many avenues of evidence point to our common ancestry with the other apes, it is not circumstantial. You did not show a single point that falsified the evidence I presented. You just repeated the same non-answers. Not only that, you insisted on red-herrings and other fallacies.<br /><br />1. Biogeographical ideas helped us find those fossils. You can kick the ground as much as you want, yet the fossils are right there, no matter how much you cry about first proteins.<br /><br />2. The fossils are right there, with intermediate characteristics. No matter how much you misquote and mislead your red-herring about punctuated equilibrium. Those fossils are still there.<br /><br />3,4. You insist that your non-answer about red-apes answers something. Well, for most of our characteristics, my brother and me look more similar than either to my cousin. Yet, my belly is a bit more like that of my cousin, while my brother has no belly at all. I have seen cases where one brother has blue eyes, the other brown, most similar to each other otherwise. Then a cousin of them has blue eyes too! I guess all that means is that there is no brothers and cousins. The higher number of characteristics in common with my brother don't count. They are circumstantial. We all sprung into existence separately, and all appearances of brotherhood and cousinghood are due to "god would not have done it this way" religious underpinning. After all, I share some characteristics with my cousin that I don't share with my brother.<br /><br />5. I didn't say "explained away." I said that those things that you interpret as "conflicting" cases are actually part of the prediction. There is a difference that I would appreciate if you learned to make instead of going through your rhetorical games.<br /><br />6. I already answered that. The chromosome fusion is yet another example that shows that our relationship with the other apes is evident even when examining the most catastrophic of our molecular differences.<br /><br />You are using the word "circumstantial" as a rhetorical tool. You are trying to say "casual" to your public. You are trying to dismiss the data as if it is minimal compared to data against the relationship. Yet, you can't show a single phenomenon that better explains the data, only red-herrings, and then supposed contradicting data based on your "misunderstanding" of genetics and heredity.<br /><br />Good job Cornelius, keep giving me fuel!<br /><br />(Well, I might not have much time to make a fire next time, but maybe others who are seeing CH's fallacies will do the favour?)<br /><br />Misguided religion drives your pseudoscience and rants, and it does indeed matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90356814187052527212011-01-29T11:15:27.844-08:002011-01-29T11:15:27.844-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72323896571161228322011-01-29T09:46:03.772-08:002011-01-29T09:46:03.772-08:00Pedant:
===
But that endorsement evidently was on...Pedant:<br /><br />===<br />But that endorsement evidently was only for the sake of argument, because realism demands, in your view, taking account of the supernatural, and that would violate the methodology of naturalism. So you really don’t countenance the combination of naturalism with realism or the combination of naturalism with anything.<br />===<br /><br />No, that endorsement was *not* only for the sake of argument. Naturalism + realism is fine. But then you either forfeit completeness, or you need metaphysics to underwrite having all three.<br /><br />Evolutionists, of course, have all three, underwritten by their Enlightenment metaphysics. That also is perfectly fine, but as I said it makes your science beholden to your metaphysics. Theology is (still) queen of the sciences.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49873472259302794322011-01-29T09:42:05.136-08:002011-01-29T09:42:05.136-08:00Pedant:
===
OK, I think I’m starting to get it. G...Pedant:<br /><br />===<br />OK, I think I’m starting to get it. Going back to your earlier comments and your post on Barbara Forrest, you countenance a combination of naturalistic method and realism or a combination of naturalistic method and completeness, but not both. Since completeness is unrealistic short of omniscience, we are left with your endorsement of naturalism and realism. That combination was Forrest’s position.<br /><br />But that endorsement evidently was only for the sake of argument, because realism demands, in your view, taking account of the supernatural, and that would violate the methodology of naturalism. So you really don’t countenance the combination of naturalism with realism or the combination of naturalism with anything. I conclude that considerations of completeness and realism are actually peripheral to your central concern: your core complaint is that evolution rules out the supernatural!<br /><br />Make sense? <br />===<br /><br />No, it is exactly the opposite. There is nothing wrong with the supernatural. The problem with evolution is that it rules *in* the supernatural. It is rationalistic beliefs about the metaphysical that underwrite evolution's mandate of method, realism and completeness simultaneously.<br /><br />IOW, if you insist on a particular method, which is going to place a restriction on the set of acceptable explanations, then by definition you have ruled out certain explanations, a priori. You cannot know, before doing the science, whether or not you have ruled out some true explanations. You might have, you might not have. So you have no guarantee of realism. One way to remedy this is to restrict your science to those phenomena that fit your method. If you mandate naturalism, for instance, then you can have realism *if* you analyze only naturalistic phenomena. But then you have lost completeness.<br /><br />By simple logic, you cannot have all three. You cannot have a restriction on method, while maintaining guarantees of realism and completeness. That is, unless you have non scientific (metaphysical) knowledge that informs you that your method is appropriate for all phenomena. If naturalism is a good model for all phenomena, then OK, you can make the method restriction without loss of realism or completeness. But now your science, and its conclusions, are beholden to your metaphysics.<br /><br />Now evolutionists insist that science must allow only explanations that are testable, naturalistic, and so forth. IOW, they restrict their method to MN. That's fine insofar as it goes. But they also insist that evolution is a fact. And they insist evolution accounts for everything. We just had S. Hawkings telling us it is now unquestionable that even the entire universe evolved naturalistically, including the Big Bang. All of biology, all of cosmology, even something as sublime as consciousness is not beyond its purview.<br /><br />So evolutionists have method, realism and completeness. And they do this not by arguing illogically. Far from it, they are perfectly logical. Their reasoning is that it is clear that god wouldn't have directly created this world, so it must be naturalistic. God must have worked strictly via secondary causes. This reasoning goes back to the eighteenth c. Enlightenment where Christians strongly argued this case. And these ideas trace back to the seventeenth c. where the core foundation was laid down for modern science. Make sense?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78165997059921594062011-01-29T03:20:21.952-08:002011-01-29T03:20:21.952-08:00Hunter:
No, you're mixing method and realism....Hunter:<br /><br /><i>No, you're mixing method and realism. Mandating MN, testability, etc., is a restriction on method. Mandating realism is a different restriction (it means that (short of this being a big dream) I want my science only to produce explanations that are true or approximately true. Make sense?</i><br /><br />OK, I think I’m starting to get it. Going back to your earlier comments and your post on Barbara Forrest, you countenance a combination of naturalistic method and realism or a combination of naturalistic method and completeness, but not both. Since completeness is un<b>realistic</b> short of omniscience, we are left with your endorsement of naturalism and realism. That combination was Forrest’s position.<br /><br />But that endorsement evidently was only for the sake of argument, because realism demands, in your view, taking account of the supernatural, and that would violate the methodology of naturalism. So you really <b>don’t</b> countenance the combination of naturalism with realism or the combination of naturalism with <i>anything</i>. I conclude that considerations of completeness and realism are actually peripheral to your central concern: your core complaint is that evolution rules out the supernatural!<br /><br />Make sense?Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48469599695738820672011-01-28T23:05:28.395-08:002011-01-28T23:05:28.395-08:00Negative Entropy:
===
5. Your "answer" ...Negative Entropy:<br /><br />===<br />5. Your "answer" to parasitic elements in common is a few "conflicting" cases? I can easily answer those few conflicting cases (if allowed a few pages of explanations). If you understand both population genetics, and the way these viruses insert and jump (which has been experimentally confirmed), you would understand that we expect such few conflicting cases, and not common independent insertion (you talk about "common mechanism" as if we did not know how these virus insert). A problem would be if the insertions put us all over the map in relationships with the rest of life. But they don't. That they don't is what you would need to explain away. But you can't, can you?<br />===<br /><br />Here, the professor explains that the evidential problems I pointed out can be explained away. Yes, they can be explained away. He then explains that if the problems I point out were more pervasive then, yes, that would be a problem. But since they are not very common, then there is no problem. <br /><br />But that is not how such problems have been handled in the past. Evolution has had false predictions in the past that evolutionists had earlier said would be show stoppers. But strangely enough, when the false predictions were discovered, evolutionists decided they really weren't show stoppers after all.<br /><br />In this case, it is true that the problems with these circumstantial evidences are not very common. Perhaps this case is different, but that has not been the track record. For now, we can give evolution the benefit of the doubt, and say it has a successful prediction. But a successful prediction does not make a theory a fact.<br /><br /><br />===<br />6. Another non answer to the chromosome fusion. I don't care about Ken's arguments agains ID. My point is that the chromosome is clearly a fusion, and that its analysis confirms similarity with the other apes even at one of the most catastrophic molecular "differences" we have with them. Other chromosomes are just too similar too.<br />===<br /><br />For this chromosome fusion evidence, which according to the professor helps make evolution a fact, he says the problems with the evidence I provide are a "non answer." But, as I explained, the chromosome fusion event we infer has nothing to do with evolution. Nowhere is evolution needed to explain the evidence. I provided the details of this in my previous posts, and the professor dismisses this as a "non answer."<br /><br /><br />===<br />Evolution is a fact, the evidence is not circumstantial, since every way we analyze the data, and every kind of data, confirms our relationships. <br />===<br /><br />So after presenting a hodge-podge of mostly problematic evidence, making illogical responses to those problems, claiming the circumstantial evidence is not really circumstantial (but of course not explaining why), ignoring substantial circumstantial evidences against evolution, and ignoring substantial direct evidences against evolution, the professor concludes that evolution is, indeed, a fact.<br /><br />He says "every way we analyze the data, and every kind of data, confirms our relationships." It would be hard to imagine a more blatant misrepresentation of science. Yes, there are circumstantial evidences that support evolution. But there also are plenty of circumstantial and direct evidences that contradict evolution. We can argue about the details of all this, and about just how damning is the evidence. We can argue about just how badly evolution fares, and how the theory could be fixed, and how perhaps future findings can help.<br /><br />But we are nowhere close to evolution being a fact. And it is not controversial that various data contradict evolution. It is not remotely conceivable that "every kind of data, confirms our [evolutionary] relationships." That is a misrepresentation of science.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85858169318424544532011-01-28T23:00:56.730-08:002011-01-28T23:00:56.730-08:00Negative Entropy:
===
2. Your "answer" ...Negative Entropy:<br /><br />===<br />2. Your "answer" to the hominid fossils actually found was that because the fossil record of trilobites show stasis punctuated with bursts of speciation thus these hominid fossils don't exist? As I said, denial is always possible, the challenge is to keep it reasonable.<br />===<br /><br />Let's see, I wrote that "Fossils appear abruptly and even evolutionists had to invoke 'punctuated equilibrium.' " and I gave an extended quote from an evolutionist to illustrate the point. To that the professor responds that I said hominid fossils "don't exist." This gives you an idea of the difficulty in trying to have a rational evaluation of the evidence with an evolutionist.<br /><br /><br /><br />===<br />3,4. Your "answer" to molecular similarities at different levels is that because we share characters with other relatives, thus the molecular data is false? Right. That was ... devastating Cornelius. Now I seriously doubt our common ancestry with other apes.<br />===<br /><br />In this case the evolutionist's evidence is the genetic similarities between humans and apes, and in particular chimps. The similarities show in the protein-coding genes as well as non coding regions. I pointed out problems* with this evidence, and to this the evolutionist says I claimed "the molecular data is false." No, I didn't say the data are false. The problem is not with the data, but rather the force fitting of the data in into the evolution framework.<br /><br />*So what were the problems I pointed out? Yes, genetic similarities between species are, themselves, consistent with evolution. They are also circumstantial evidence. Genetic similarities tell us how the genes compare. They do not tell us how the species arose. But I didn't want to leave it at that because, in fact, these evidences present important problems for evolution. I discussed these problems in a post, so I provided the URL:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html<br /><br />These are serious evidential problems. Does it mean the data are false, as the evolutionist charged? Of course not. Evolutionists may wish they were false, but what it means is that the evidence does not provide the kind of support for evolution that they claim. According to the evolutionist's own assumptions and theory, the evidence forces them to draw heroic conclusions.<br /><br />continued ...Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45009667551269615192011-01-28T22:56:43.606-08:002011-01-28T22:56:43.606-08:00Negative Entropy:
===
I would appreciate if you l...Negative Entropy:<br /><br />===<br />I would appreciate if you learned the meaning of the word "circumstantial." <br />===<br /><br />Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact [Wikipedia]. You listed<br /><br />1. Biogeographical data<br />2. Fossils<br />3. Genetic similarities between species (presumably coding regions)<br />4. Genetic similarities between species (non coding regions)<br />5. Genetic similarities between species (transposons and retro viruses)<br />6. Human chromosome #2 fusion<br /><br />All of these are unequivocally circumstantial evidences -- there is no question about this. I mean, for those interested in what is a fact, as evolutionists seem to be, it is a fact that these evidences are circumstantial. As evolutionists put it, It is beyond any "reasonable doubt." It is like gravity, nay even more certain than gravity. It would be irrational to doubt that these evidences are circumstantial. And yet ...<br /><br />I point this out and the professor responds: "I would appreciate if you learned the meaning of the word 'circumstantial.' " <br /><br />Evolutionists are so convinced evolution is a fact they cannot critically examine the evidences. They cannot think straight about this. It is just so obvious to them that the evidence isn't even circumstantial. If you point this out you will be told to go consult a dictionary.<br /><br /><br />===<br />I would also appreciate it if you focused on the issues at hand, instead of jumping all over the place to harder to explain phenomena such as origin of the first protein, while denying the obvious: that we are relatives of the other apes.<br />===<br /><br />Actually those "harder to explain phenomena" are important. In science, when we propose a theory we can't just say "let's skip those harder cases." The harder cases need to be considered as well as the easy cases.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />===<br />Your doubts are not reasonable and are full of fallacies and holes.<br />===<br /><br />Oh, good, I'll be glad to learn that I am wrong on this. Let's see what you have to say ...<br /><br /><br /><br />===<br />1. Your "answer" to the fact that biogeographical / evolutionary thinking lead to the discovery of hominids with brain capacities (among other anatomical clues) intermediate between what other apes show today and what we have today in humans is convoluted at best, and does not change the fact that such thinking lead to discovering such fossils. You fail to show how this is circumstantial.<br />===<br /><br />And I'm the one who is supposed to learn the definition of "circumstantial"? Biogeographical evidence has to do with the geographical locations of the different species, and over time. It does not show *how* the species got there. That is circumstantial evidence.<br /><br />continued ...Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41853738606802937512011-01-28T16:40:31.981-08:002011-01-28T16:40:31.981-08:00Guys,
I am off this blog for another few days. Lo...Guys,<br /><br />I am off this blog for another few days. Lots to write. Among that an article that I should really finish this weekend. I will make sure to wirte something like "a remaining problem in evolution is XXXXX, most scientists expect that YYYYY, however, our results show that ZZZZZ." This way Cornelius will be able to use the article as "another failed prediction of evolution," whether what I say is an actual prediction of evolution, or just a question about what happens which way.<br /><br />So, its up to you to see if you can get somewhere with Cornelius' diatribes. I guess you can see that it is just a matter of exposing his lousy thinking.<br /><br />By the way, I think I found a way to answer the "conflicting" insertions that might not require knowledge of how these things insert/jump, nor of population genetics, and pages of explanations. Who is the next "champion" after chimps given these "conflicting" insertions? By any chance is it gorillas? Who is next after gorillas? Oran-gutans? Well then, how does the order of "championship" conflict with our common ancestry then? We see that "conflicting" data appear in the next in line to our common ancestry, which is what we predict from common ancestry and the proper understanding of the facts and processes involved. So?<br /><br />Anyway, enjoy your weekends and beyond!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com