tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3229368109006720675..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Steve Clarke: Naturalism Can’t Be SureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70424173338514748802011-03-24T09:20:12.347-07:002011-03-24T09:20:12.347-07:00Cornelius Hunter
Well be careful. I don't say...Cornelius Hunter<br /><br /><i>Well be careful. I don't say evolution predicts there would be no convergence. Read more carefully.</i><br /><br />I guess than you argue that there is to much convergence (for your taste). And this is what I’m interested in how you determined that it is to much. But if this is done by probability calculations I probably don’t want to know.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4273337424786808152011-03-23T18:08:48.956-07:002011-03-23T18:08:48.956-07:00second opinion:
===
That there would be no conver...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />That there would be no convergence, for example. <br />===<br /><br />Well be careful. I don't say evolution predicts there would be no convergence. Read more carefully.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58547158184316045622011-03-23T11:47:18.022-07:002011-03-23T11:47:18.022-07:00CH: Indeed, I had already explained that within th...CH: Indeed, I had already explained that within the evolution genre, the research papers do not argue for the fact of evolution, rather they assume it as a given. So their theological content is typically implicit, not explicit.<br /><br />And, as I've already mentioned, research papers on gravitational theory do not make arguments that God wouldn't be the direct causes of the phenomena we attribute to gravity because this would result in him directly pushing and pulling people to their deaths. <br /><br />Are you suggesting that this implication would have no impact on your position on gravitational theory? Are you denying the lack of conflict between science (gravity is a natural force) and Christianity (gravity is a natural force crated by God as a secondary cause) would negate the need to present such arguments publicly in either a formal or informal manor? <br /><br />Again, just because someone does not publicly voice an opinion doesn't mean that they do hold a position. <br /><br />Just as you refusal to disclose your position of where divine revelation fits in the hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction doesn't mean you do not have an position on divine revelation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14074648623608169712011-03-22T19:24:31.068-07:002011-03-22T19:24:31.068-07:00CH:But I don't know of any that have so many p...CH:But I don't know of any that have so many prediction failures and yet all along are insisted to be a fact.<br /><br />This just in: Evolution is shouldn't be considered a scientific fact since Cornelius Hunter doesn't know of any theories that have more "falsified" predictions.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70841991444741175972011-03-22T19:23:02.988-07:002011-03-22T19:23:02.988-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2099965696355371642011-03-22T19:15:08.783-07:002011-03-22T19:15:08.783-07:00CH: They *made* the predictions, according to evo...CH: They *made* the predictions, according to evolution. My method is to read the literature, and compare findings with predictions. Most of the chief predictions of evolution have met with unexpected data.<br /><br />Based on empiricism alone, it's unclear how can you can determine which data is expected. This is because expectations are contextual, which would be something else that you could not afford as a naive emperisist. <br /><br />Imagine some alien species ran across out planet. They may predict we would carry personal digital entertainment devices, such as iPod and iPhones, if our technological ability had reached a particular point in their own historical progress. <br /><br />However, if they visited North Korea, they would find no such devices. At best, they would find analog tape devices, similar to walkman tape players that were state of the art in the late 70''s. <br /><br />Clearly, this is a violation of the prediction and represents unexpected data. Yet, iPods an iPhones are common these days. How can this be?<br /><br />In this case, the problem isn't a lack of technical advancement, but the fact that North Koran government is under heavy sanctions from other nations so they cannot import these devices. Furthermore, their economy is such that the inhabitants could not afford such devices even if they were available. <br /><br />Again, the prediction that we would be using portable entertainment devices does not account for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated, yet parallel factors that might prevent the prediction from being observed, such as unbalanced dictatorships such as those found in North Korea. <br /><br />Rather than falsify the theory, this particular violation reinforces the predication as it shows the contrast of the technological progression we have made. <br /><br />However if this were prophecy, rather than a prediction of a scientific theory, it should have accounted for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated, yet parallel factors by nature of being a communication from a supernatural being. If it was not actually observed, it would represent false prophecy.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60914508394433015402011-03-22T17:46:01.048-07:002011-03-22T17:46:01.048-07:00Cornelius Hunter:
===
what you have identified as...Cornelius Hunter:<br /><br /><i>===<br />what you have identified as false predictions either are not and never were predictions of the ToE<br />===<br /><br />I didn't know that. Which one(s)?</i><br /><br />That there would be no convergence, for example.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81145582074446223802011-03-22T15:23:00.835-07:002011-03-22T15:23:00.835-07:00Cornelius:
Sure, theories commonly meet with unex...Cornelius:<br /><br /><i>Sure, theories commonly meet with unexpected data. But I don't know of any that have so many prediction failures and yet all along are insisted to be a fact.</i><br /><br />I'm looking forward to your quantitative comparative analysis where you verify this claim! Can you give us a hint when to expect this?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89863171589293759682011-03-22T15:15:28.371-07:002011-03-22T15:15:28.371-07:00troy:
===
No kidding. When you say "evolutio...troy:<br /><br />===<br />No kidding. When you say "evolution", I assume you mean the theory of evolution (ToE). Are there any scientific theories apart from TeO that haven't met with unexpected data? <br />===<br /><br />Sure, theories commonly meet with unexpected data. But I don't know of any that have so many prediction failures and yet all along are insisted to be a fact.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37936072875201034912011-03-22T15:11:34.570-07:002011-03-22T15:11:34.570-07:00second opinion:
===
what you have identified as f...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />what you have identified as false predictions either are not and never were predictions of the ToE<br />===<br /><br />I didn't know that. Which one(s)?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2940950337465859522011-03-22T14:10:59.030-07:002011-03-22T14:10:59.030-07:00Well, let's recap.
Hunter: Richard Dawkins, ...Well, let's recap. <br /><br /><b>Hunter:</b> Richard Dawkins, for instance, argues god would never have designed the blind spot in our retina. Such metaphysical truth claims are by no means limited to outspoken evangelists such as Dawkins. From seventeenth century tracts to today’s textbooks, evolution entails claims about the supernatural.<br /><br /><b>Pedant:</b> Hunter knows that such claims are not made in the primary literature.<br /><br />Hunter: [Links a colloquium paper by John Avise, then a comment by Eugene Koonin.]<br /><br /><b>Everyone:</b> These are not examples of the primary research literature. <br /><br /><b>Hunter:</b> The paper's theological content is implicit, not explicit... It is easy to find theological content in research papers, but you need to understand the context. <br /><br />--------------------------------------<br /><br />Funny.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34830451439393275152011-03-22T14:06:21.597-07:002011-03-22T14:06:21.597-07:00Cornelius:
My method is to read the literature, a...Cornelius:<br /><br /><i>My method is to read the literature, and compare findings with predictions.</i><br /><br />It seems to me your method is to scan the popular press for stuff about evolution, then select those pieces that most usefully distort the original findings, and then produce another rant on the religious assumptions of the "evolutionists". I can see how that can be fun for you. <br /><br /><i>Most of the chief predictions of evolution have met with unexpected data.</i><br /><br />No kidding. When you say "evolution", I assume you mean the theory of evolution (ToE). Are there any scientific theories apart from TeO that haven't met with unexpected data?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86435848689168164732011-03-22T13:34:15.340-07:002011-03-22T13:34:15.340-07:00Cornelius Hunter
The problem is and we had this t...Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />The problem is and we had this topic before that what you have identified as false predictions either are not and never were predictions of the ToE or the ToE has subsequently been corrected.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63281593377806501092011-03-22T13:17:47.807-07:002011-03-22T13:17:47.807-07:00second opinion:
===
I would be interested in the ...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />I would be interested in the methodology by which you determined a prediction to be false in contrast to all the evolutionary biologists. <br />===<br /><br />Methodology? Contrast to evolutionists? No this is not in contrast to evolutionists. They *made* the predictions, according to evolution. My method is to read the literature, and compare findings with predictions. Most of the chief predictions of evolution have met with unexpected data.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25769619523008927282011-03-22T12:10:37.348-07:002011-03-22T12:10:37.348-07:00===
Let's take for example the issue of common...<i>===<br />Let's take for example the issue of common descent. You say the evidence is mixed (which I disagree with)<br />===<br /><br />Don't lack of mechanism, novel proteins, UCEs, non homologous development pathway, phylogenetic inconsistencies which have even evolutionists dropping the evolutionary tree metaphor, massive convergences, and so forth, count?</i><br /><br />Rhetorics: A+ content: F<br />Not that every single issue has been discussed a million, billion or trillion times before so it must be completely surprising that somebody would disagree with you.<br /><br /><i>===<br />and that the "evolutionist" despite this mixed evidence claim that common descent is 100% certain (which by the way they don't claim).<br />===<br /><br />And which I don't say. It is amazing how evolutionists respond to their own words.</i><br /><br />Sorry of course you don't say that. You say that “evolutionists” claim that common descent is a no brainer fact (see below). So apparently you consider it a non-no brainer fact. <br /><br /><i>===<br />And then you argue the 100% certainty is the bad science (which it I agree would be) and some lesser percentage would be the "good" science. You never say what percentage you think would be appropriate which lends to straw man you have erected.<br />===<br /><br />So to recap, evolutionists misrepresent science, insist on their metaphysical claims, claim evolution is a no brainer fact, and it is my fault for not pin-pointing evolution's likelihood.</i><br /><br />In my opinion it is a silly and stultifying exercise to calculate “evolution's likelihood”. But since it seems to be your cup of tea I don't want to say anything about it.<br /><br /><i>===<br />But you also never tell us what methodology you used in assessing the evidence. When pressed all we are left with seems to be your "gut" feeling.<br />===<br /><br />False predictions is a pretty good way.<br />[www.DarwinsPredictions.com] </i><br /><br />I would be interested in the methodology by which you determined a prediction to be false in contrast to all the evolutionary biologists.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64187737805331292352011-03-22T09:54:09.051-07:002011-03-22T09:54:09.051-07:00Pedant:
===
What you were claiming in your earlie...Pedant:<br /><br />===<br />What you were claiming in your earlier sentence. The burden of explanation is on the person who makes the claim.<br />===<br /><br />I made no such claim, it was you who asked, remember? You asked for examples of theological content in research papers, and when asked what exactly you mean by theological content, and what difference such content would make for you, you fell silent.<br /><br />This reminds me of our previous discussion where you asked me about "genetic relatedness", a vague term which you would not define, even when asked.<br /><br />Indeed, I had already explained that within the evolution genre, the research papers do not argue for the fact of evolution, rather they assume it as a given. So their theological content is typically implicit, not explicit.<br /><br />Consider a hypothetical example of a creationist paper that concludes the Flood was X feet in depth. It all sounds scientific, as the conclusion is based on various geological data. But of course the underlying, unspoken assumption is that the Flood was world-wide. This hypothetical paper exists within a genre that makes explicit religious claims, such as the nature of the Flood in this hypothetical case. Within the genre, there is no need, nor is it appropriate, for a research paper to restate the fundamental assumptions of the genre. The paper's theological content is implicit, not explicit.<br /><br />This is how the evolution genre works. It is easy to find theological content in research papers, but you need to understand the context. If you knew nothing of the genre, and were not an expert in the life sciences, and you read a paper that concluded a particular type of photoreceptor cell must have evolved early in the history of life, based on various molecular data, then it would be difficult for you to understand the crucial role of theology in the paper. Of course the conclusion of the paper is unwarranted given the data, but that is not obvious if you are not an expert.<br /><br />If you want to understand the literature within a genre, then you need to be prepared to do some analysis of the literature and the genre.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41392522140461086162011-03-22T07:20:29.607-07:002011-03-22T07:20:29.607-07:00CH: Don't lack of mechanism, novel proteins, U...CH: Don't lack of mechanism, novel proteins, UCEs, non homologous development pathway, phylogenetic inconsistencies which have even evolutionists dropping the evolutionary tree metaphor, massive convergences, and so forth, count?<br /><br />If it were based on prophecy, then yes. But unlike prophecy, evolutionary predictions are not empirical mandates.<br /><br />If prophecy is not observed, it's false. This is because prophecy supposedly accounts for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated, yet parallel factors that might prevent the prediction from being observed. It does so by nature of being communication from a supernatural being. <br /><br />This is NOT the case with evolutionary predictions. HGT, the limited conditions at which remains fossilize, varying environmental conditions, etc. are just a few factors that can cause predictions to vary without the underlying explanation being false. Furthermore, we can observe these factors at work in the wild. Predictions of scientific theories cannot and do not account for an infinite number of un-conceived and unrelated yet parallel factors. <br /><br />This is why predictions of theories cannot be evaluated in isolation of the underlying explanation they are based on, while prophecy can.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7668716552651176052011-03-22T06:53:07.825-07:002011-03-22T06:53:07.825-07:00When we unpack 'metaphysics', 'the sup...When we unpack 'metaphysics', 'the supernatural', etc., we find the burden of Cornelius' underlying claim: the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reasoning and problem solving. <br /><br />It's unclear how he knows this boundary exists at all, let alone that it exists where he claims it does. <br /><br />Without an explicit criteria, this appear to be arbitrary. <br /><br />Of course, I do not expect such a criteria to be forthcoming for reasons that are obvious.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68890649192394906562011-03-22T05:16:11.399-07:002011-03-22T05:16:11.399-07:00Cornelius Hunter: The origin of the ETs plays no r...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>The origin of the ETs plays no role in the SETI project. </i><br /><br />That is incorrect. SETI is based on theories of how life may occur in the universe based on comparisons with life on Earth, in particular, Drake's Equation. Resolving the terms of the equation involves determining how life might originate and evolve on other planets. <br />http://www.seti.org/drakeequationZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45416832922335011212011-03-22T03:14:17.391-07:002011-03-22T03:14:17.391-07:00Having failed to provide a primary publication in ...Having failed to provide a primary publication in the biological literature that invokes a theological/religious explanation for the data, Hunter plays the definition card: <br /><br /><i>It seems not to matter that they insist evolution is a fact, based on <b>theological</b> and philosophical premises, and in spite of monumental scientific problems.<br />….<br />So for you, what passes as "theological"?</i><br /><br />What you were claiming in your earlier sentence. The burden of explanation is on the person who makes the claim.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67837199223735064902011-03-22T02:14:57.926-07:002011-03-22T02:14:57.926-07:00second opinion:
===
Let's take for example th...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />Let's take for example the issue of common descent. You say the evidence is mixed (which I disagree with) <br />===<br /><br />Don't lack of mechanism, novel proteins, UCEs, non homologous development pathway, phylogenetic inconsistencies which have even evolutionists dropping the evolutionary tree metaphor, massive convergences, and so forth, count?<br /><br /><br />===<br />and that the "evolutionist" despite this mixed evidence claim that common descent is 100% certain (which by the way they don't claim). <br />===<br /><br />And which I don't say. It is amazing how evolutionists respond to their own words.<br /><br /><br />===<br />And then you argue the 100% certainty is the bad science (which it I agree would be) and some lesser percentage would be the "good" science. You never say what percentage you think would be appropriate which lends to straw man you have erected.<br />===<br /><br />So to recap, evolutionists misrepresent science, insist on their metaphysical claims, claim evolution is a no brainer fact, and it is my fault for not pin-pointing evolution's likelihood.<br /><br /><br />===<br />But you also never tell us what methodology you used in assessing the evidence. When pressed all we are left with seems to be your "gut" feeling. <br />===<br /><br />False predictions is a pretty good way. [www.DarwinsPredictions.com]Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23042581590431134322011-03-22T01:57:00.886-07:002011-03-22T01:57:00.886-07:00When someone asks you to back up your claims with ...<em>When someone asks you to back up your claims with published scientific research, merely linking back to your own blog where you made the same unsupported claims previously doesn't answer the question.</em><br /><br />I've noticed that creationists will often answer a direct question by claiming that they've already answered it. It's not their fault that you don't listen, or are unwilling to dig a little to find their original answer. The problem is that trying to find their original answer becomes a near infinite regress of posts saying "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post in which they say "I answered it here", with 'here' linking to a post...<br /><br />It's turtles all the way down.<br /><br />I predict that CH will link to this post as "evidence" when he makes the exact same claim in a future post.Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68368731937202012322011-03-22T01:15:40.536-07:002011-03-22T01:15:40.536-07:00Cornelius Hunter
===
The irony is that this blog i...Cornelius Hunter<br /><i>===<br />The irony is that this blog is to a large part the attempt to draw a line in the sand between god science and bad science without coming clean about the concrete criteria.<br />===<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />===<br />And when pressed the line mysteriously vanishes under a thick fog of empty words.<br />===<br /><br />Perhaps it mysteriously vanishes in your view because it was never something intended in the first place. There seems to be a never-ending variety of wiggle strategies evolutionists use to justify their fact claim.</i><br /><br />Let's take for example the issue of common descent. You say the evidence is mixed (which I disagree with) and that the "evolutionist" despite this mixed evidence claim that common descent is 100% certain (which by the way they don't claim). And then you argue the 100% certainty is the bad science (which it I agree would be) and some lesser percentage would be the "good" science. You never say what percentage you think would be appropriate which lends to straw man you have erected.<br /><br />But you also never tell us what methodology you used in assessing the evidence. When pressed all we are left with seems to be your "gut" feeling.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45921770171054011352011-03-21T21:53:10.929-07:002011-03-21T21:53:10.929-07:00nano:
===
"That would be a news flash to peo...nano:<br /><br />===<br />"That would be a news flash to people who actually study the demarcation problem (as opposed to evolutionists such as yourself who simply assert truths for the rest of us to follow)."<br /><br />so you disagree that all science follows methodological naturalism? bc that's all i was saying. <br />===<br /><br />No, all science does not follow MN. Clarke addresses this in the paper discussed in the OP. here are two examples: 1: 17th and 18th c explanations that invoked God (Newton, Linnaeus, Paley, etc). 2: SETI.<br /><br />For SETI, evolutionists object, saying they believe the ETs evolved in the first place. Fine, but that's not relevant. The origin of the ETs plays no role in the SETI project. There is no appeal or restriction to natural law. The explanations are not limited to natural laws, and indeed they play *off* of natural laws. That is, the search is for signals that are *not* from the known natural laws that cause cosmic signals. In this case, the evolutionist's complaint is, in fact, philosophical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. Sure, evolutionists can always say they believe there are natural laws that explain the origin and evolution of life, intelligence, consciousness, etc, to the point of creating classical music or some other signal that is broadcast to the universe. But none of that is relevant to SETI. What is relevant to SETI is signals that are known to come from natural processes. It looks for signals that do *not* match those.<br /><br /><br /><br />===<br />"Furthermore, the evolutionist's naive pronouncements about the philosophy of science simply lead to more (unanswered) questions about realism and completeness."<br /><br />if methodological naturalism fails to answer a question, then we'll say "science can't solve this" and the answer will have to come from elsewhere. or else we'll just have to say we don't know. <br />===<br /><br />OK, good, I like that approach too. So you say let's forfeit the guarantee of completeness. It could be that we might run into problems that MN cannot solve. So MN doesn't provide you with cover. By that I simply mean, there may be times where we'll need to admit MN isn't working very well.<br /><br />So my next question is: should we honestly tell the people about the goodness of our theories? Hopefully you say "yes." So then why don't we do this with evolution. Why, instead, do we insist it is a fact while using MN as cover? Why don't we simply tell the truth? The MN program, when applied to origins, has these successes and these failures, and we're still working the problem. Of course we think the failures will be resolved, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating the current status. Bottom line is: we have these successes and these failures with MN. Why not say this? Why the lie about it being a fact?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38987581881635040402011-03-21T21:34:21.239-07:002011-03-21T21:34:21.239-07:00Another great post, Dr Hunter.
Where is it writ...Another great post, Dr Hunter. <br /><br />Where is it written that the truth is limited to ONLY the natural? Especially when nature cannot be the first cause of itself.National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.com