Ruining Careers and Reputations to Get Their Way
Thursday, January 17, 2013
For Evolutionists, Crime Does Pay
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Why is there no debate over evolution? Why does everyone believe in the Epicurean vision that the world arose spontaneously? Just ask David Coppedge, the IT guy at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory who dared question evolution. Coppedge was an excellent employee who enjoyed his job, but when he openly questioned Darwin’s theory all that changed. The evolutionists at JPL manipulated his reviews, creating a false paper trail which they would later use against him. Coppedge was demoted, eventually fired, and had his good name taken away. Now a judge, who no doubt like Judge Jones “understood the general theme,” has ruled in favor of the evolutionists. For evolutionists it is all about control because they cannot tolerate an open exchange of ideas. It is yet another disgraceful case of evolutionary blackballing, and that is why there is no debate over evolution.
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(148)
-
▼
January
(19)
- What Really Matters
- Evolution is Getting Slammed Again in This Transcr...
- RetroVirus Turned Hero: “We Once Thought it Was Junk”
- You Won’t Believe What Politicians Are up to Now
- Here is That New Paper on Synonymous Nucleotides
- Forty Years On, Concerns Linger
- Genes Code For Many Layers of Information
- Euthanasia, Japanese Style
- A Marine Mollusk Grinds Down Rock
- For Evolutionists, Crime Does Pay
- If You Understand Nothing Else About Evolution Und...
- Trending: Evolution’s Information Technology
- Here is How Evolutionists Lie to the Public
- Evolutionist, You Are the Man!
- When I Pointed Out the Absurdity an Evolution Prof...
- New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms
- Here is That One and Only Leaping Cockroach
- Horizontal Transfer Finally Reaches the Eukaryotes
- Cellular Machinery Redesigns Genes For Cold Temper...
-
▼
January
(19)
You're fighting against a gang of lying psychopaths and gutless cowards. Know thine enemy.
ReplyDeleteWow Cornelius, you don't have a clue, and your rant is a pack of dishonest distortions. Like coppedge and his lawyer you just make things up. How can you consider yourself a decent human being when you live by lies and monstrous fairy tales?
ReplyDelete"Why is there no debate over evolution?"
Surely you jest. No debate? Do you actually believe that there's no debate over evolution? Don't you ever even
read your own blog? You don't get out much, do you?
In this case there is a fairly complete archive of the legal aspects of the case here.
ReplyDeleteNo fair-minded or rational person can read the documents here and not conclude that Coppedge was justly fired for cause. That won't prevent Cornelius and his friends from their quest for a new martyr. It is, after all, in the Christian tradition.
And atheists are more than willing, if given a free hand, to fill the annals of history with Christian martyrs:
DeleteAtheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU
Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions By David Berlinski - list of genocides by atheists
http://books.google.com/books?id=Wlr6xOa64t4C&pg=PA23&dq=the+devil%27s+delusion+Tibet&hl=en&ei=1Jq1S_aSKofc8QTN3o3sAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"Christian" Atrocities compared to Atheists Atrocities - Dinesh D'Souza - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk
Background on David Coppedge and the Lawsuit Against NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Deletehttp://www.discovery.org/a/14511
Cornelius Hunter asks:"Why is there no debate over evolution?". An excellent question.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uncommondescent.com/education/ud-pro-darwinism-essay-challenge/
Is anybody willing to take up the UD PRO-DARWINISM ESSAY CHALLENGE now approaching 4 months unanswered? Jeffrey Shallit? 'The whole thruth' maybe?
Why in the world would anyone bother to write up a 6000 word summary of facts that can be found in any freshman level biology book just to please Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights Montserrat?
DeleteLoL! There isn't anything in any biology textbook that supports evolutionism.
Deletethortty boo-boo is just a bluffing coward, as usual.
Jeffrey Shallit:
ReplyDeleteNo fair-minded or rational person can read the documents here and not conclude that Coppedge was justly fired for cause.
LoL! Jeffrey you moron, he was NOT fired. He was part of a layoff involving many people.
You must be one of the most ignorant people, ever.
Chubs is actually right for once. Coppedge wasn't fired, he was part of a larger lay off. His incessant Godbothering and constant complaints about him from his coworkers wasn't the main reason although it probably was a factor. The main reason was he didn't bother to keep his technical skill set up to date, and when the Cassini mission ended there was no work for him. Happens to a lot of short-sighted professionals.
DeleteBeing fired for cause is what happened to Joe Gallien when he was axed by Stratus Computers after being caught making threats of physical violence from his work computer.
There's a difference.
Thanks for the correction, Joe! That's what I get for posting so early in the morning.
DeleteMy point (obscured by my stupid phrasing) was - if you read the court documents - easily available in the link I gave - you can only conclude, as the judge did, that Coppedge's case had no merits whatsoever.
Jeffrey,
DeleteI posted the following on April 14, 2012:
OK Coppedge vs JPL has been going on for weeks- and I have no idea what is really going on. Sure there are hints, little blurbs and summaries, but that is about it.
My thoughts on this have always hinged on what Coppedge's job performance was. Was he good at what he did, was he one of the best, just adequate, above average, hard worker- because if his performance was better than most, at his position, then he would have a case against JPL pertaining to be laid-off being linked to his religious, political and scientific PoV. Especially if he was better than those they retained.
That said, last week there was something about an employee performance evaluation that had Coppedge ranked below average, but I have no idea about the metric used nor who used it to make the evaluation. Then again JPL said it didn't use that to determine who got laid-off and who was retained.
So that is another question- How did they decide who to let go? I have always assumed it was based on performance, however I know reality says the ass-kissers get to stay and the alleged boat-rockers get the heave-ho.
Any thoughts?
From what I understand he may not have been up to snuff with the ongoing projects' software:
see here
If he didn't have the skills required going forward, then he didn't have a case. It appears he didn't.
So no, it- his "case"- doesn't appear to make sense and I hope I am missing something. Otherwise he has some 'splainin' to do.
emotionally disturbed:
DeleteBeing fired for cause is what happened to Joe Gallien when he was axed by Stratus Computers after being caught making threats of physical violence from his work computer.
And here I thought I left Stratus for a better, higher paying position at a bigger and better company.
Yup, history says that is what happened. But the again thorton the cowardly liar has to try to rewrite my history. Its obsession with me is juston some weird type of jealousy. Pathetic wimps, like thorton, are always jealous of athletes. And because he always got picked last in gym class, his rage has lasted a life-time. Now it has found me.
Ain't that special...
BWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHAAAAAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAA
Chubby Joke G
DeleteAnd here I thought I left Stratus for a better, higher paying position at a bigger and better company.
No, you got fired for posting physical threats against others using company computers. Most companies take a rather dim view of such things. The story got spread over the C/E board circuit when it happened, and most everyone though you got exactly what you deserved.
Pathetic wimps, like thorton, are always jealous of athletes.
LOL! Fatboy Joke an athelete?? I know you claimed to be an Olympic caliber athlete just like you claimed to be a war hero and a research scientist and a top-secret GA cryptologist, but the fact is you're just a fat blob compulsive liar. The only sports position you could play is if they greased you up and wedged you into the 4'x6' hockey net as a goalie.
Hey joey, Cornelius said:
Delete"Coppedge was demoted, eventually fired, and had his good name taken away."
According to you "he was NOT fired" so Cornelius "must be one of the most ignorant people, ever.", and a "moron", eh joey?
The whole truth
DeleteHey joey, Cornelius said:
"Coppedge was demoted, eventually fired, and had his good name taken away."
According to you "he was NOT fired" so Cornelius "must be one of the most ignorant people, ever.", and a "moron", eh joey?
LOL! Good catch!
Chubs scores another own-goal for Team IDiot!
Dumbest. Creationist. Ever.
And here I thought I left Stratus for a better, higher paying position at a bigger and better company.
Deletelying dimwit:
No, you got fired for posting physical threats against others using company computers.
No, I left Stratus for better, higher paying position at a bigger and better company, and your lies will never change that fact.
Yup, history says that is what happened. But the again thorton the cowardly liar has to try to rewrite my history. Its obsession with me is juston some weird type of jealousy. Pathetic wimps, like thorton, are always jealous of athletes. And because he always got picked last in gym class, his rage has lasted a life-time. Now it has found me.
Ain't that special...
brown nose liar:
I know you claimed to be an Olympic caliber athlete
Nope, I never have claimed that. Again your lies just prove that you are a pyschpath and nothing else.
just like you claimed to be a war hero
Nope, I never claimed that, either.
a research scientist
I was.
and a top-secret GA cryptologist
Nope, I never claimed that, either.
The only sports position you could play
I can play just about any position in any sport, and I can easily out-perform a little wimp like you.
I know there isn't any way you would ever get on the ice in a hockey game with me on the opposing team.
Chubby Joke G
DeleteI can play just about any position in any sport, and I can easily out-perform a little wimp like you.
I know there isn't any way you would ever get on the ice in a hockey game with me on the opposing team.
LOL! So now the compulsive liar is not only an Olympic caliber athlete and a war hero and a research scientist and a top-secret GA cryptologist, he's also a skilled ice hockey player!
What happened to all your war hero injuries you got outrunning that RPG?
Joe G: "Anyone who is aware of my physical condition (Thanks Iraq) knows I cannot jump up & down.
Joe G: "I think I was trying to prove one can outrun an RPG"
You're right Chubs. I'd never go onto a frozen pond with your big fat ass already on it - too much danger of you breaking through the ice.
Dumbest. Compulsive liar. Ever.
loser coward:
Delete"Anyone who is aware of my physical condition (Thanks Iraq) knows I cannot jump up & down.
Skating does NOT require jumping up and down.
But thanks for proving that you don't understand hockey.
Fatboy Joke must have been the inspiration for the Dilbert Character "Topper"
Delete"Topper
A relatively frequently recurring character in the strip. Whenever anyone mentions in Topper's earshot any difficult task he or she accomplished, he barges into the conversation with a smug facial expression, exclaiming "that's nothing!". He then proceeds to top the other's statement with his own, obviously implausible or downright ridiculous, claim. He seems to be genuinely offended when the others express disbelief in his purported exploits. He allegedly cannot start a conversation, as he claims that it "ruins his system".
That's Fat Joke Gallien to a T.
Chubby Joke G
DeleteI've got so many chins I need a bookmark to find my collar
LOL! Whatever you say Fatboy "Topper" Joe.
thortty boo-boo:
DeleteI've got so many chins I need a bookmark to find my collar
And I am sure that your boyfreinds drop their loads on your chins and leave you a pearl necklace for a collar.
Time for you next meltdown so soon Fatboy "Topper" Joe?
Deletehoney boo-boo's lover:
DeleteTime for you next meltdown so soon
You are the meltdown champ, loser. I see the truth still stings...
Chubby Joe's latest tardgasm.
DeleteHow long will it last?
honey boo-boo's lover thorton, how long can it spew it's cowardly lies?
DeleteWell, bad things happen to good people, so its no surprise there.
ReplyDeleteSometimes bad people get what they deserve. One thing that is crystal clear is that Coppedge's Godbothering and lack of professionalism brought all this on himself.
Deletedefinite bad person:
DeleteSometimes bad people get what they deserve.
And I am sure that fact bothers YOU quite a bit.
Chubby Joke G
Deletedefinite bad person:
In this case it's a technically incompetent Godbotherer who spent all his time harassing his coworkers instead of keeping his skill set current, then filed a bogus lawsuit claiming he was a victim of religious discrimination.
Tell me Chubs, since you claim that ID has nothing to do with religion, how could preventing the pushing of ID be religious discrimination?
And I am sure that fact bothers YOU quite a bit
No Chubs, seeing jerks like Coppedge get what they deserve doesn't bother me in the least. in fact, I hope JPL sues his ass off to recover their court costs for this frivolous and baseless lawsuit.
And seeing punks like you get what they deserve will be just dandy.
DeleteAnd your lies about Coppedge just prove tat you are a lowlife loser.
When you lose one court case after another, perhaps the explanation is not that the courts conspire against you, but that you have no case.
ReplyDeleteMy personal experience with the Los Angeles Superior Court in downtown L.A. is that it is a cesspool of corruption and malpractice. Just search for "los angeles superior court corruption" and you'll see what I mean.
DeleteWe're taking bets at my work on how long until Coppedge is hired by the Discovery Institute to be a professional martyr. They'll parade him to church groups around the country, he'll whine and sob on cue about being the persecuted Christian, be a great money-raising tool. They may even make him a Fellow and set him up with a propaganda blog to spread the DI's lies like Cornelius Goebbles is paid to do.
ReplyDeleteThorton, since you so concerned with honesty, I'm sure you will have no problem seeing the dishonesty here:
DeleteBelgian Waffle - Douglas Axe - January 18, 2013
Excerpt:,, an article from Ghent University in Belgium claims a recent scientific paper has rescued evolutionary theory by solving the problem of evolutionary innovation.,,,
Here's the concession:
"An important unanswered question in Darwin's theory of evolution is how new characteristics seem to appear out of nowhere."
Hmmm. Yes, I can see how this could be a problem for a theory of biological origins.,,
,,,here's the plain statement:
"The preduplication [i.e., ancestral] ancMalS enzyme was multifunctional and already contained the different activities found in the postduplication [i.e., evolved] enzymes, albeit at a lower level."
So, all we have here is a demonstration of what we already knew -- that evolution can adjust somewhat the relative preferences enzymes show for the molecules they already work on. Those aren't new activities, though, and this isn't a new result either.
What would be really new and welcome would be for evolutionary biologists to begin taking the word new seriously.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/belgian_waffle068421.html
You actually work somewhere other than this blog Thorton?
DeleteIc,
DeleteYou actually work somewhere other than this blog Thorton?
A job offer?
Not really. But I'm sure Thorton takes the time to constantly upgrade his Evolutionary skills. You know like proving RM & NS didit, or is that beyond his pay grade?
DeleteIc,
DeleteNot really. But I'm sure Thorton takes the time to constantly upgrade his Evolutionary skills. You know like proving RM & NS didit, or is that beyond his pay grade?
I think he is in a technical field, there is always new info and skills to acquire. I think scientists are busy constantly testing exactly what mechanisms account for the diversity of life. I think that it is a bit more involved than just RM/ NS, but as of now the evidence for any alternative theory is unconvincing. Exactly how are upgrading your skeptical skills?
V: ... but as of now the evidence for any alternative theory is unconvincing.
DeleteJ: Alternative? There is a naturalistic causal theory that EXPLAINS a particular UCA tree (i.e., implies a tree via a set of event regularities applied to some relevant precambrian initial conditions?)? Where do we find out about these event regularities that imply such a tree? And are these event regularities in operation in the world today?
lcplusplus
DeleteBut I'm sure Thorton takes the time to constantly upgrade his Evolutionary skills.
Not 'evolutionary' skills, but I take at least one class a year to keep up with the latest scientific and technical advances in the field.
You would too if you have two brain cells to rub together.
Liar for Jesus Jeff
DeleteAlternative? There is a naturalistic causal theory that EXPLAINS a particular UCA tree (i.e., implies a tree via a set of event regularities applied to some relevant precambrian initial conditions?)?
What are we now, two months into LFJJ raising this topic and the idiot is still demanding a theory that predicts specific results. The idiot is still too stupid to get that the random part of evolutionary processes precludes any specific predictions.
How long before this neutronium skulled idiot has the concept sink in? It's looking more and more like never. Some Creationist willful ignorance and stupidity just can't be overcome.
A theory which doesn't predict a phenotype doesn't explain it, Moronton. An explanation IS a logical deduction. Predictions ARE deductions from a theory. You have no idea what words mean. You don't know what "explanation" means. You don't know what "evidence" means. You're just clueless.
DeleteNo, thorton, YOU don't get it. Your position is total untestable nonsense.
DeleteAnd you prove that every day.
Jeff
DeleteA theory which doesn't predict a phenotype doesn't explain it
"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay"
Likewise random genetic mutations are statistically stochastic with regard to fitness. The knowledge of the exterior pressures on phenotype are incomplete. Absolute knowledge is an aspect of religion, the lack of it in science fails to justify CH science is religion meme.
An explanation IS a logical deduction
From existing data,which is incomplete in the case of evolutionary mechanisms, or geology or astronomy or physics. Abductive and inductive reasoning is used when there is incomplete knowledge.
Predictions ARE deductions from a theory
One deduction is that everything cannot be predicted with stochastic processes or/ and an incomplete understanding or knowledge of initial conditions
You have no idea what words mean. You don't know what "explanation" means.
One can explain a random number generator without being able to predict every outcome.
You don't know what "evidence" means.
What exactly is the data which supports SA that doesn't support UCA?
vel:
DeleteLikewise random genetic mutations are statistically stochastic with regard to fitness.
LoL! Ernst Mayr said they are random, as in chance/ happenstance events.
One can explain a random number generator without being able to predict every outcome.
One can only explain a random number generator via agency involvement- meaning only agencies construct RNGs.
What exactly is the data which supports SA that doesn't support UCA?
What data is exclusive to UCA?
V: What exactly is the data which supports SA that doesn't support UCA?
DeleteJ: SA is less speculative, and that's all it needs to be in the absence of a naturalitic explanation for either SA or UCA. Why do I need support for my view when you don't for yours?
As for radioactive decay, no one claims it's been explained, do they? If so, what IS that explanation? If not, why do they keep saying UCA has been explained?
Jeff,
DeleteAs for radioactive decay, no one claims it's been explained, do they? If so, what IS that explanation?
" Radioactive decay is the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles (ionizing radiation). There are many different types of radioactive decay (see table below). A decay, or loss of energy, results when an atom with one type of nucleus, called the parent radionuclide, transforms to an atom with a nucleus in a different state, or to a different nucleus containing different numbers of protons and neutrons."
We'll have to ask Oleg, but it seems fairly well understood. Observed change, observed mechanism...deductive logic.
If not, why do they keep saying UCA has been explained?
Do they? " they" still are spending a lot of effort for nothing then It is the best explanation at this time, per the folks that work in the field . Now one can believe they are all liars or stupid of course
Claim.....A theory which doesn't predict a phenotype doesn't explain it,
DeleteJoe........One can only explain a random number generator via agency involvement- meaning only agencies construct RNGs
It doesn't matter the claim is to explain a process you have to predict, probably exactly, the phenotype,the result. RNGs since they are actually designed must be explainable and the output is not. Claim fails
What data is exclusive to UCA?
I can only guess without some effect on my part, but I would say that anything that supports one could support the other, with the exception of no know mechanism that would cause species to arise without ancestors.
Not effect, effort
DeleteJeff,
DeleteJ: SA is less speculative,
I just don't see it. First there is no scientific theory of SA,as far as I can tell. That alone makes ToE less speculative than any other scientific theory. Beyond that SA requires an undetected and maybe undetectable mechanism. No Joe design is not a mechanism,it is what the mechanism produces
that's all it needs to be in the absence of a naturalitic explanation for either SA or UCA.
The mechanisms of ToE are observed and tested, live things reproduce better than dead ones, genetic mutations exist, these can be transferred allowing cumalitive change, a vast amount of time is available for slow change. Now certainly there are many unknowns but it has proved to be a fruitful paradigm. That sounds like a natural explanation
Why do I need support for my view when you don't for yours?
I claim the entire over-educated biology community as support,what exactly is the scientific theory of SA? How did complex organism come to be without ancestors.? Who is the Designer? When did it occur? Just a few questions?
V: First there is no scientific theory of SA,as far as I can tell.
DeleteJ: Right. But there is no scientific theory OF UCA, either. Thus, if we both speculate that natural evolutionary mechanisms can at least produce the variation entailed in the SA approach in the relevant time-spans, it's clear that speculating BEYOND that, as you do, is MORE speculative.
V: Beyond that SA requires an undetected and maybe undetectable mechanism.
J: I would say it can't be known to involve a material mechanism, though it might.
V: No Joe design is not a mechanism,it is what the mechanism produces
J: It's not merely the product we mean by design. It's LIBERTARIAN causality that we mean by design. That's why means, including mediating mechanisms, are not required in design explanations. Means are posited in design accounts when they are observed. But even human teleological causality involves a FIRST effect in the finite, teleological event sequence which is explained without means.
V: The mechanisms of ToE are observed and tested,
J: But no one yet knows how (and therefore whether) they could explain the posited phenotypic trajectories in the posited time-frames. UCA is not a belief about what could evolve over some sequence of environments with some variational mechanisms in some time-frame. It's a hypothesis that requires a specific genealogical HISTORICAL tree to have occurred within SPECIFIC time-limits with SPECIFIC variational mechanisms over a sequence of SPECIFIC environments. The latter is what we don't know is logically possible, much less plausible. It is void of inductive evidence.
V: live things reproduce better than dead ones,
J: This is true regardless of whether SA or UCA is true.
V: genetic mutations exist,
J: This is true regardless of whether SA or UCA is true.
V: these can be transferred allowing cumalitive change,
J: But we don't how MUCH can be accumulated consistent with viability in the posited time-frame.
V: a vast amount of time is available for slow change.
J: DNA sequence space is so vast that the time posited for the existence of the universe itself is too pathetically short relative to posited mutation rates to render the "time available" knowingly helpful.
V: Now certainly there are many unknowns but it has proved to be a fruitful paradigm. That sounds like a natural explanation
J: No, we're not even in the ballpark yet.
V: I claim the entire over-educated biology community as support,
J: Well, you would be very naive, then. They've made their claims. They're all irrelevant to any inductive plausibility criteria, just as the ones you've just made.
Atheists and deists think theodicy problems prove UCA is the only extant option. This is the true source of their certainty, as CH has documented OVER and OVER. But in fact atheistic and deistic epistemologies are arbitrary systems that don't even account for the existence of warranted belief. Thus, they can't even get off the ground epistemologically.
All their claims are the logical equivalent of bald pontifications. Indeed, if they are right, I would have no EVIDENCE that they DID exist. It would be equally probable that they are mere illusions of mine.
V: Who is the Designer?
J: The Designer is inferred to be the being that designed the FIT between the natural inductive and deductive modes of thought and the specific caused event regularities that I don't cause that render those inferential modes VALID.
V: When did it occur?
J: No one knows. Because known stratigraphic ranges are not known to coincide with actual stratigraphic ranges, and actual stratigraphic ranges are not known to coincide with existential ranges.
Taphonomic bias and erosion prevent the fossil "record" from being a relevant "record" of when species originate and go extinct. Indeed, the older the earth, the more erosion has occurred--so much so that we have an exceedingly hard time explaining the sediment distribution given the posited duration of sedimentary processes.
LOL! Liar for Jesus Jeff: long on philosophical gibberish, 100% short of scientific knowledge and understanding.
DeleteNo doubt about it, Moronton. To UCA'ists, inductive and deductive logic is gibberish-philosophy, because it doesn't produce for them their desired evidence for naturalistic UCA.
DeleteLiar for Jesus Jeff
DeleteNo doubt about it, Moronton. To UCA'ists, inductive and deductive logic is gibberish-philosophy, because it doesn't produce for them their desired evidence for naturalistic UCA.
No LFJJ. Your problem is all the philosophizing gibberish in the world doesn't make the empirical physical positive evidence for a UCA go away.
Science has this nasty habit of favoring physical reality over philosophical blithering. So sue us.
V: " Radioactive decay is the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles (ionizing radiation).
DeleteJ: It's the emmitance itself that is unexplained, because it's timing is unpredictable. Now I believe it IS caused. But we don't have a causal explanation for it yet. If we can't predict the timing, we don't know what the antecedent necessary and sufficient conditions of its occurrence is. That which is merely observed can not be known, thereby, to be caused by those who posit causeless events, like many atheist scientists do. Regularity of an event sequence is required for a naturalistic CAUSAL explanation. I suspect there is a regularity at some level that explains it naturalistically. If it's not caused by some event sequence regularity, we have no reason to posit that decay rates are constant over time, for either the past or the future.
Jeff,
DeleteRight. But there is no scientific theory OF UCA. Thus, if we both speculate that natural evolutionary mechanisms can at least produce the variation entailed in the SA approach in the relevant time-spans
No I disagree, lacking any specificity SA does not approach even the level of hypothesis. Lacking specificity it is impossible to determine anything about SA except generalities. My contention is that SA is more speculative since it is indeterminant. Common Descent is less so, so there is no need to go to a next step. You are engaging in false equivalence
It's not merely the product we mean by design. It's LIBERTARIAN causality that we mean by design. That's why means, including mediating mechanisms, are not required in design explanation
Then lacking any mechanism it is more speculative than a hypothesis that has observed mechanism, science wise. Second is nature capable of design? It does not have libertarian free will.
UCA is not a belief about what could evolve over some sequence of environments with some variational mechanisms in some time-frame. It's a hypothesis that requires a specific genealogical HISTORICAL tree to have occurred within SPECIFIC time-limits with SPECIFIC variational mechanisms over a sequence of SPECIFIC environments
Exactly, that is why it is less speculative than SA. Now truly you can say it has failed,but it is still less speculative. Now of course lacking infinite knowledge we have to learn thru different means exactly that specificity entails.
The latter is what we don't know is logically possible, much less plausible. It is void of inductive evidence.
Logically? For instance? Plausible, good question . Of course a mechanism is required for plausibility, in which case it is more plausible than SA. Inductive evidence?
" Inductive reasoning begins with observations that are specific and limited in scope, and proceeds to a generalized conclusion that is likely, but not certain, in light of accumulated evidence"
"Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*"
Again whether you agree with it or not,it is inductive evidence.
J: DNA sequence space is so vast that the time posited for the existence of the universe itself is too pathetically short relative to posited mutation rates to render the "time available" knowingly helpful.
Prove it, might I suggest TSZ has a thread concerning exactly that assertion.
But we don't how MUCH can be accumulated consistent with viability in the posited time-frame
But it exists,there is no need to add a designer
J: No, we're not even in the ballpark yet
Possibly but it is the best so far.
claim the entire over-educated biology community as support,
J: Well, you would be very naive, then. They've made their claims. They're all irrelevant to any inductive plausibility criteria, just as the ones you've just made.
Not unless your definition of induction requires certainy. And no, not naive just not foolish enough to believe that I am smarter than people who do it everyday, or that for some reason it is all a conspiracy.
Jeff,
DeleteIt's the emmitance itself that is unexplained, because it's timing is unpredictable
It is random per quantum theory,that is the explanation. Explanations can include chance events,if chance events take place. If you are saying that everything is deterministic. then requirement would make sense, are you?
That which is merely observed can not be known, thereby, to be caused by those who posit causeless events, like many atheist scientists do
So things that are observed can not be known to be caused by atheist scientists. Really? What causeless events do they posit? And what do you mean by known? Can the world only make sense if it is designed?
I suspect there is a regularity at some level that explains it naturalistically. If it's not caused by some event sequence regularity, we have no reason to posit that decay rates are constant over time, for either the past or the future
It is caused naturalistically, it is just at some level as a quantum things can be random, at other levels it is perfectly predictable. It sounds like you view quantum theory as invalid.
V: It is caused naturalistically, it is just at some level as a quantum things can be random, at other levels it is perfectly predictable. It sounds like you view quantum theory as invalid.
DeleteJ: Quantum formulas are valid. But not because of the interpretations of them by some. The randomness is phenomenological. We don't know that the observable events are not actually part of a regular event sequence that isn't random at all.
V: What causeless events [atheists] do they posit?
J: Some posit that space, time, etc originated a-causally.
V: Explanations can include chance events
J: Descriptions can be of chance events. Conditions that have no antecedent necessary and sufficient conditions are, by definition, inexplicable. They are uncaused and therefore not explained.
V: No I disagree, lacking any specificity SA does not approach even the level of hypothesis. Lacking specificity it is impossible to determine anything about SA except generalities. My contention is that SA is more speculative since it is indeterminant. Common Descent is less so, so there is no need to go to a next step. You are engaging in false equivalence
J: The only specificity about UCA is Platonic/teleologicall in nature. It's the tree-generation stuff. That has nothing to do with whether there are event regularities that EXPLAIN the posited lineages.
V: And no, not naive just not foolish enough to believe that I am smarter than people who do it everyday, or that for some reason it is all a conspiracy.
J: I'm not smarter. But a Platonic perspective is teleological in nature. It is not one that explains in terms of event regularities. So they haven't refuted teleology by cladistics. They're just doing a different version of it. But it doesn't explain the FIT of the human modes of thought and the existence of event regularities that correspond to them, etc. Nor does it ground a rational (i.e., non-relativistic) view of ethics or morality. Thus, it leaves epistemology absolutely arbitrary. That isn't "better" in any conceivable sense.
V: "Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*"
Again whether you agree with it or not,it is inductive evidence.
J: No. It's not inductive evidence relative to SA. Because Theobald's approach requires the positing of kazillions of ad-hoc hypotheses that SA doesn't. And mechanisms aren't necessary for the first effect of a teleological causal chain. So the whole "mechanism" bit is irrelevant.
There's a reason why Dennett, Shermer, Harris, Dawkins etc. deny the reality of libertarian causality. The problem with that view is that all belief is, per that view, inevitable. No non-arbitrary epistemology can be conceived of if this is the case. "Evidence" ends up being virtually meaningless because arbitrary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTheobald's approach, BTW, wasn't comparing the more typical teleological SA approach to UCA. CH has dealt with this specifically, already. The "multiple separate ancestries" he was comparing UCA to were nothing like the separate ancestries posited by those like Agassiz, etc, who do so based on a teleological approach that uses particular classificational criteria as the "ends."
DeleteV: "Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life"
DeleteJ: "Conserved" is an evolutionary term. Thus, to refer to proteins as "23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life" implies that at least that much common ancestry is ASSUMED in the study. In other words, common design was ruled out arbitrarily. But in that case, Theobald was not comparing UCA to ID-style SA at all.
What you have to remember, V, is that most ID'ists are benevolent theists. Hence, they've already posited a teleological explanation for the fit of human epistemology to an inferred extra-self reality that behaves in accordance with event regularities that render induction VALID. Once such a designer is inferred to explain that fit and a moral order that renders moral thought rational, there is no reason to posit evolutionary sequences that are purely speculative at this time. Such ID'ists can account for the separate ancestors by simply positing the relevant attributes to the SAME designer.
DeleteYour view is doomed to leave the most important two things to humans UNEXPLAINED--a rational moral system and a non-arbitrary epistemology. The latter, in turn, means all belief is indistinguishable from blind faith. For if belief is unexplained, it also not explicably fitted to an extra-ego reality. Such a fit must be just BLINDLY believed. How does "evidence" and "plausibility criteria" non-arbitrarily derive from such a state?
Jeff ,
DeleteJ: Quantum formulas are valid. But not because of the interpretations of them by some. The randomness is phenomenological. We don't know that the observable events are not actually part of a regular event sequence that isn't random at all.
True, we don't. Therefore it could be random or not, to the best of our knowledge it is. A working hypothesis.
Conditions that have no antecedent necessary and sufficient conditions are, by definition, inexplicable. They are uncaused and therefore not explained.
There are necessary and sufficent conditions, as witnessed by radioactive decay's predictability at larger than atomic scales. What we can't predict is when ,not if it will decay at atomic levels. This is explained by quantum theory, now what explains quantum theory? As of now it is provisional as is most of human knowledge,but quantum theory ,like Newton' Law of Motion,ability to make accurate predictions at certain levels makes it a useful tool.
J: I'm not smarter.
I thought your position was that they were liars or incredibly stupid? Lying for a scientist is incredibly stupid. So unless you believe you are incredibly stupid beyond belief,you actually do believe you are smarter. Which is it?
But a Platonic perspective is teleological in nature
Certainly for Plato
It is not one that explains in terms of event regularities
Then that is where science is not platonic, the basis of science is empirical,which requires event regularities
So they haven't refuted teleology by cladistics
Were they trying to? Cladistics would accommodate teleology/design.
They're just doing a different version of it.
That is your and Dr Hunter's contention. In order to allow your use of design. As is the whole science is religion theme. In order to do it ,one has to expand the definition until it no longer eliminates anything.
But it doesn't explain the FIT of the human modes of thought and the existence of event regularities that correspond to them, etc
Not sure what "it" refers, what exactly is the FIT?
Nor does it ground a rational (i.e., non-relativistic) view of ethics or morality.
Nor tell you your favorite flavor of ice cream,alas the limits of science.
Thus, it leaves epistemology absolutely arbitrary.
Philosophers got to make a living ,too
That isn't "better" in any conceivable sense.
Unless science isn't a religion,just a tool like a hammer. I don't expect my hammer to give me ethical guidance. However philosophy will never land Curiousity on Mars,in that field science and empirism is better if that is your goal.
Jeff,
DeleteTheobald's approach, BTW, wasn't comparing the more typical teleological SA approach to UCA. CH has dealt with this specifically, already. The "multiple separate ancestries" he was comparing UCA to were nothing like the separate ancestries posited by those like Agassiz, etc, who do so based on a teleological approach that uses particular classificational criteria as the "ends."
So you are saying that he is not accurately describing what the opposing side view is in order to calculate inaccurate probabilities ? Inconceivable......
I believe he computed the odds for several types of SA, perhaps you might point out the scientific hypothesis of SA which is the most accepted by the SA scientific community. How do you classify according to " ends"? I am curious,this is an entirely new idea.
jeff ,
DeleteJ: "Conserved" is an evolutionary term. Thus, to refer to proteins as "23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life" implies that at least that much common ancestry is ASSUMED in the study. In other words, common design was ruled out arbitrarily. But in that case, Theobald was not comparing UCA to ID-style SA at all.
Not at all, common design is possible,as is design. With an unknown designer with unknown abilities with unknown goals anything that is logically possible is possible.What he did was demonstrate based on certain assumptions that a naturalistic explanation for SA was less probable than LUCA. The claim was that there was no inductive evidence for LUCA, this is inductive evidence. It is not a certainty and can be refuted, one way is to provide evidence of an other than naturalistic cause of SA.
Jeff,
DeleteYour view is doomed to leave the most important two things to humans UNEXPLAINED--a rational moral system and a non-arbitrary epistemology.
Three things actually,you forgot the best roast beef poboy in New Orleans. I don't ask a plumber to reveal morality in the workings of my pipes, I feel the same way about science, experts on how things work on a natural level. That is all they can claim to be experts on.
You realize that both those two important things are aspects of religion,since science lacks those you are undermining the claim that science is religion. Oops.
The latter, in turn, means all belief is indistinguishable from blind faith.
Perhaps, or maybe there are conditionally true beliefs. However the a religious belief is just as prone to the same objections unless one assumes the assumed provides revelation, which of course has the same objection. We are stuck in this frame.
For if belief is unexplained, it also not explicably fitted to an extra-ego reality. Such a fit must be just BLINDLY believed
How is belief in a specific extra ego reality not arbitrary? It is has the same likihood as any other, being certain doesn't mean one is correct. What exactly provides the certainty of the belief? The Bible, Aquinas, philosophy? What verifies them as truth,a belief? Imperfect knowledge has it limitations. Just assuming a being with perfect knowledge doesn't eliminate the problem.
How does "evidence" and "plausibility criteria" non-arbitrarily derive from such a state?
From as few assumptions as possible, it is conditional. Luckily science by its success in describing one aspect of reality is useful within limits.
J: The latter, in turn, means all belief is indistinguishable from blind faith.
DeleteV: Perhaps, or maybe there are conditionally true beliefs. However the a religious belief is just as prone to the same objections unless one assumes the assumed provides revelation, which of course has the same objection. We are stuck in this frame.
J: I'll try to get to the rest of your comments later this week. But for now, if we are ALL stuck in a frame where "all belief is indistinguishable from blind faith," is there really anything to debate? If we're not stuck in such a frame, how do you know that?
If every conceivable belief is tentative, then the belief that all beliefs are tentative is tentative. But the latter implies that the belief that all beliefs are tentative is not KNOWLEDGE. And therefore it has no relevance to any debate.
All we can do is lay what seems to be obvious on the table and see if we have common grounds to get convergence on points where we currently disagree. If that's not the objective of discussion, it's futile.
I'll add this too: I think it's obvious that virtually everyone has cognitive strengths and weaknesses. People who are really strong in some cognitive ability can be really weak in others. When I say scientists are smart, that doesn't imply that they aren't really weak in SOME cognitive abilities. E.g., philosophers are smart, and yet they disagree all over the place.
Jeff,
DeleteI'll add this too: I think it's obvious that virtually everyone has cognitive strengths and weaknesses. People who are really strong in some cognitive ability can be really weak in others. When I say scientists are smart, that doesn't imply that they aren't really weak in SOME cognitive abilities. E.g., philosophers are smart, and yet they disagree all over the place.
I don't disagree, but perhaps it would be better then not label them as " liars or stupid beyond belief" especially when they are within their field. Unless one has a reason to believe they are exempt from that observation.
If every conceivable belief is tentative, then the belief that all beliefs are tentative is tentative. But the latter implies that the belief that all beliefs are tentative is not KNOWLEDGE. And therefore it has no relevance to any debate.
Perhaps not every belief is " as" tentative, maybe there is knowledge at certain levels, the ability of being able to dismiss some beliefs is also knowledge and reduces the set of possible true beliefs. That is what makes philosophy interesting, smart people "pushing the rock up the hill"
All we can do is lay what seems to be obvious on the table and see if we have common grounds to get convergence on points where we currently disagree. If that's not the objective of discussion, it's futile.
A rational view, but of course it depends on what one's goal and the other participants goal is to determine the most effective way to pursue it. After all, if one is sure they posess the " truth" why even consider another view? Personally I am more a path than destination sort of person, much to the consternation of my beloved, from that view there are many truths to be found ,none need to be the ultimate destination.
V: I don't disagree, but perhaps it would be better then not label them as " liars or stupid beyond belief" especially when they are within their field. Unless one has a reason to believe they are exempt from that observation.
DeleteJ: There are folks in the field who realize how far we are from explaining UCA naturalistically. But they still want to and work to that end. Then there are those that are quite literally either speaking out of the absolute idiot side of their idiot-savant mouth, or they are intentionally duping the public into believing what is absolutely false. The latter are the ones CH writes blog-posts about.
V: After all, if one is sure they posess the " truth" why even consider another view?
J: Amazing, ID'ists can say over and over that IF an event-regularity explanation is discovered that ACTUALLY accounts for a UCA history, then UCA would BE the best explanation. But somehow you insist upon misrepresenting them over and over. There is no conceivable sense in which the current Platonic-teleological view is better than the benevolent theism merely because it explains LESS even AS a teleological view. It has LESS breadth of explanation.
V: Personally I am more a path than destination sort of person,
J: Thanks for the heads-up. That will save a lot of time. My view of science is that it is truth-approximating. My interest in science, then, is that it IS heading to a better destination. And that's why it's the best approach for the long-term.
That said, IMO, science, to be demarcatable, can never be arbitrary. And therefore it can't non-tentatively just RULE OUT final causes as competing hypotheses and still be demarcatable.
What is a fair thing for scientists to say is that IF all biology is ultimately explicable naturalistically, then UCA at least SEEMS more gut-level-plausible than SA. But that's still a whopping "if." And that's what this blog is about.
This is not the NASA of Neil Armstrong and John Glenn. Now NASA relies on Russian rockets to get to space while they hold diversity classes. Courage, boldness, exploration, wonder and real diversity are gone. They have been replaced by a leftist hacks.
ReplyDeleteDr. William Jastrow, the first chairman of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee, which established the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. And also the Chief of the Theoretical Division at NASA (1958–61). And also the founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1961. And also a Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University, said the following:
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized."
"Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion."
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
CH,
ReplyDeleteCoppedge was an excellent employee who enjoyed his job, but when he openly questioned Darwin’s theory all that changed. The evolutionists at JPL manipulated his reviews, creating a false paper trail which they would later use against him. Coppedge was demoted, eventually fired, and had his good name taken away
That was the allegation, what information do you posess that the court was unaware of? What proof do you have that it was a false paper trail? Manipulation of reviews? if not why are you assuming that because someone believes in ID, he is incapable of being a bad employee? Specifically is this supposed to be a factual post or merely for non factual purposes. Just curious what you certainty stems from.
BA,
Be a pal and post what the court found in this case
Allow me
DeleteI read the entire document carefully and completely. It seems very clear to me that the court decision was correct, legally justified, and amply supported by the evidence (including evidence submitted by the plaintiff). Having been peripherally involved with similar situations at Cornell (having to do with tenure, etc.) and having read carefully those sections of the proposed decision dealing with the reasons for the termination of Mr. Coppedge's employment at JPL (specifically the fact that the number of SAs was being reduced to 3 and that Mr. Coppedge himself admitted under oath that the 3 SAs that were retained were more qualified for the positions than he was), it seems very clear that 1) Mr. Coppedge was laid off because his position was "downsized" and 2) he specifically was laid off because he was less qualified that the SAs who were retained. Therefore, Dr. Hunter's (and other ID advocate's) insistence that Mr. Coppedge was laid off because of his religious views is completely without objective merit and fails on the basis of (at a bare minimum) 1) special pleading 2) irrelevant arguments 3)ad hominem arguments.
ReplyDeleteHaving lost virtually every argument in the domain of science, this is what ID supporters are apparently reduced to: fallacious logic and whining about "religious discrimination".
Allen MacNeill:
DeleteHaving lost virtually every argument in the domain of science
Can you give some examples of these scientific arguments where evolution has won the day?
Is this the same Allen MacNeil who provided 50 (or was it 80?) plus mechanisms for Evolution which were, when examined by a non-Evolutionist simply different names for the exact same thing (NS & RM)?
DeleteI bow down before you, sir.
Icplusplus,
DeleteOnly point mutations could be considered "random" as in chance events. Read "Not By Chance" by Dr Spetner.
CH:
ReplyDeleteCoppedge was demoted, eventually fired, and had his good name taken away.
Coppdge ws NOT fired, Cornelius. At least TRY to get the facts straight.
Hey joey, why did you leave out "moron" and "one of the most ignorant people ever"?
DeleteChubby Joke G
ReplyDeleteID has not lost any arguments in the domain of science
That's because ID has never entered the domain of science. ID doesn't have the evidence or the spine to enter the domain of science. ID resides completely in the religious dogma and political propaganda domains.
You can't lose if you never compete.
ID has not lost any arguments in the domain of science
Deletelying punk, momma's boy:
That's because ID has never entered the domain of science.
How would you know, you are totally ignorant of science. Your position has never entered the dpomain of science and you prove that every day.
ID doesn't have the evidence
Yo don't know what evidence is as evidenced by the fact that you cannot present any positicve evidence that supports your empty, lie-filled position.
So thorton chimes in with more hollow nonsense and thinks it means something.
What Thorton said does mean something because it's true. The so-called "ID inference" is nothing but a creationist/political agenda that has nothing to do with science. None of your belligerent, bald assertions will change that, ever.
Deletejoey g: Dumbest. Creationist. Fool. Ever.
Aw, little joey is having a hissy fit. Poor baby.
ReplyDeletejoey g: Biggest. Crybaby. Ever.
TWiTTY boo-boo-
DeleteYOU ARE a hissy-fit you pathological lying coward.