« Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence | Main | Equip Christian Students »

August 29, 2012

Comments

"The Darwinian theory has dominated our culture for the past 100 years.
Come hear how the Intelligent Design Theory calls into question the validity of Darwinism.
The Case for Intelligent Design, Presented by the Discovery Institute."

I assume Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District doesn't get much of a mention?

Hi Mike,

I don't know about the event in SD, but in the history of science it sure will!

You are not the first person I have seen trot out that decision as though it makes some points for materialistic naturalism. I guess on one level, I understand the jab, but stepping back to the 30,000 foot level, you must be aware of some of the history of science aren't you?

How many theories from science past can you count off the top of your head that are now considered false? And they were all trumpeted as indisputable facts of science during "their day". (The Copernican revolution comes to mind for me, as does the development of our theories of gravity.)

One thing that I have gleaned from these past times of transition in science is that the old guard always clings to authority claims like court decisions, and our "consensus of scientists agree", when confronted with new evidence and new theories that better explain the new information.

Mike, don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking science (the scientific method to be more exact)Peer reviewed journals, scientific communities...all of these things are important and serve a social and pragmatic purpose. However as the history of science has undoubtedly shown, none of these social institutions have proven to be the sole arbiter of what is in fact the case.

Regards,
John

One who chastises another for questioning and examining data merely because that data is the status quo (or any data really) in effect has no idea what science is, for science itself just is that posture and mode of questioning, challenging, and pushing further. Such postures have been chastised in the past by the reigning authority of majority only to be, bit by bit, undone further down the road. When it becomes un-intellectual to question and push the envelope, then the very act and business of science has become un-intellectual.

“If you disagree with me you’re stupid.”

Really?

John

Science is always provisional. And I wasnt mentioning Kitzmiller as a defence of Evolutionary Theory (it doesnt need it), more to expose what ID is - i.e. a religious view and not science at all.

I dont think this is true btw " And they were all trumpeted as indisputable facts of science during "their day""

You use of language here is telling - "How many theories from science past can you count off the top of your head that are now considered false?" Its NOT that they are false - more that they are less useful models because there is some aspect of reality that they fail to account for.

I submit that the "aspect of reality that they fail to account for" is God.

Hi Mike,

My use of language is telling of what? I went back and read the post and I think the typical reader of this blog understands that the geocentric model of our solar system is false. If you think it's better to say the model that says the sun revolves around the earth is "less useful" then the Copernican model...who am I to stop you?

"Science is always provisional"

My point exactly!

If the macroevolutionary hypothesis truly is science (not philosophic naturalism) and all science is provisional, then what is something that would prove it false? (or "less useful" in your parlance)

Also, in light of this recent statement, please clarify what you meant in past posts about the macroevolutionary hypothesis being a "fact".

A "fact" is a word that most people use to describe an observation, not a conclusion.

For example "it is a fact my truck is white." It is a theory of mine the truck was painted by a professional, but I don't know this as a fact. Do you see the distinction AND the difference?

Regards,
John

Even "failed" scientific theories are approximately correct over a certain range. Ptolemy is still good enough for celestial navigation. Newtonian gravitation is OK for spaceship navigation. You can still calculate most heat flows with caloric theory.

But intelligent design has no evidence that it is even approximately correct for anything. and the ID seem totally uninterested in finding out what a design might involve, when it could have happened, how it could be implemented, or anything else. And they can point to no positive evidence whatever. They rely entirely upon supposed shortcomings in evolution, using the logical fallacy that evidence against Theory A is not evidence for Theory Z.

2,500 scientific papers per year modify the details of evolution theory and apply it to hundreds of different situations. ID conducts no research whatever---no experiments, no field expeditions, no nothing---and publishes no papers for evaluation by their peers.

J.M.,

You should move that browser off of talkorigins every once in a while. These are exciting, changing times we are living in. The implosion of the macroevolutionary hypothesis is passing you by!

John

"The implosion of the macroevolutionary hypothesis is passing you by!"

To be replaced by ID?

Have you ever read talkorigins? In doing so you can find the answer about ways of falsifying macroevolution.

Lets face it; its only your particular brand of religion that makes you anti-evolution. Its nothing to do with the evidence.

Going back to your bold first claim - please can you link me to a scientific paper which indicates this "implosion". Or you can just pass me the AiG/DI link if you dont have any scientific papers to link to.

Mike,

I'm not anti-evolution, I am pro-science.

And every human being that has ever lived follows a "particular brand of religion." You follow one too - it's called philosophic naturalism.

The macro-evolutionary hypothesis can not even be remotely considered science. At best it's a false philosophy.

One of the ways Darwin thought his hypothesis could be proved wrong was if we didn't find massive amounts of transitional fossils in the years following the publishing of his ideas. This has obviously not occurred, yet this inconvenient fact has not stopped his successors from morphing his hypothesis into something else that now supposedly explains why we don't find these fossils. Darwin would be disappointed.

The irony here with this morphing of the hypothesis is lost on most philosophical naturalists, because most of you guys draw the lines on what conclusions can even be considered as answers. This explains perfectly why bombastic statements like yours and JMs("there is no evidence for ID"..."they don't propose any mechanisms", "macroevolution is a fact", etc, etc") are offered so frequently and with such hubris.

This sophomoric over-confidence from supposed skeptics makes perfect sense because given the philosophic underpinnings of your view of the world, you will always be right. But so is a Texas sharpshooter.

The Christian worldview does not have this problem Mike. It is not bound to only finding answers to observed phenomena that fit into this contrived, naturalized, philosophic framework. As a Christian I am free to follow the scientific evidence wherever it leads. If some observed phenomena suggests a natural cause, no problem for me. If some observed phenomena suggests a supernatural agent, no problem for me either, my worldview doesn't fall apart. Either explanation is not defined away before the experiments begin for me. For you - the philosophic naturalist - you do not have this liberty. Any observed phenomena - MUST have a natural explanation - end of story.

In my opinion this is why most followers of "your particular brand of religion" commonly refer to the macroevolutionary hypothesis as a fact. For them it really is because a fact is something that is essentially defined, not observed.

ID is a hoax and will always be, unless of course it can come up with some evidence to the contrary. But don't hold your breath - it could be a long wait.

"Either explanation is not defined away before the experiments begin for me. For you - the philosophic naturalist - you do not have this liberty. Any observed phenomena - MUST have a natural explanation - end of story."

Well said.


".....pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe)...."


This is one (there are others) reason why the philosophic naturalist *WILL* have such a long wait for evidence which undermines his own philosophy. He focuses on the lack of fossil confirmation and his bias leads him to reach up into the air and invent punctuated equilibrium within the arena of species to calm his nerves yet all the while he neglects the problem which physicists are now facing in justifying the existence of Some-Thing at all rather than No-Thing as they (in their own philosophy) reach into other universes to justify the existence of this one. It is like the child who discovers the kitchen sink and its faucet with knobs which turn water on and off. “See, water DOES come from faucets” all the while ignoring the network of plumbing feeding the faucet. No amount of *success* in the search for water’s origin will give a coherent worldview, for there lies beneath and behind the various knobs (which can never explain water) a whole other world comprised of a labyrinth of pipes fed by yet more plumbing fed out of yet more cities of yet more worlds all of which the child’s mind cannot fathom, and even refuses to fathom. The little knobs which turn this way and that way are, at the end of the day, of no account for the child *wills* to believe they came from nowhere and water's entire explanation lies in those little knobs and their tiny turns to the left and to the right. No amount of tiny turns of tiny knobs will ever account for Water of course, but such remains to be discovered by the child as he matures.


Such is enough for the child in his own temporary Now. It is not enough for many of us.


The probability (P) of energy being eternal is exactly 0

The probability (P) that [any] universe is eternal is exactly 0

The probability (P) of Some-Thing coming from No-Thing is exactly 0

The probability of Materialism is exactly 0.

Mike

"You use of language here is telling - "How many theories from science past can you count off the top of your head that are now considered false?" Its NOT that they are false - more that they are less useful models because there is some aspect of reality that they fail to account for."

That's like saying "He's not dead, he's just electroencephalographically challenged."

;)

I just find this kind of politically correct language terribly amusing. It's good material for a comedy routine, but it sure falls short of describing reality.

If you defend ID, please please tell us: what is the very best it has to offer?

RonH

RonH-- ID offers an understanding of all natural phenomena with one simple, all-encompassing, easy-to-comprehend hypothesis: "God {or other favorite supernatural entity} did it." If you'd like to know how this entity did it, or exactly what he did, or why---well, ID is not interested in what William Dembski considers unimportant details, because "intelligent design is not a mechanistic theory" (Uncommon Descent) Thus ID performs no experiments and conducts no field expeditions. They do maintain a Biologic Institute in Seattle, consisting of two fume hoods, a microscope, and a telephone-answering service.

ID also offers numerous future benefits to mankind, although the exact nature of these benefits, and the process by which they will be discovered, seem to be closely guarded secrets.

One place ID may be helpful is that it may help fill in the following gap:


The probability (P) of energy being eternal is exactly 0

The probability (P) that [any] universe is eternal is exactly 0

The probability (P) of Some-Thing coming from No-Thing is exactly 0


Therefore: the probability of Materialism being true is exactly 0.

J.M. wrote:
"RonH-- ID offers an understanding of all natural phenomena with one simple, all-encompassing, easy-to-comprehend hypothesis: "God {or other favorite supernatural entity} did it."

That's not what ID claims, but that is the pop culture interpretation of ID.

J.M. I just don't understand why guys like yourself, Mike and RonH, are so scared to have a discussion about what the theory actually claims. I mean why not attack what they are actually saying! So what if after you learn what they are actually saying you think it's false? Yippee! You weren't convinced, but at least you would be rejecting the real thing instead of the caricature of ID portrayed by the same folks that brought us hackel's embryos and those famous spray painted moths on trees!

Don't forget the empty hand reaching up into the air and pulling out punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossils in various strata......

scbrownlhrm
"Don't forget the empty hand reaching up into the air and pulling out punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossils in various strata......"

Strawman

John

"I just don't understand why guys like yourself, Mike and RonH, are so scared to have a discussion about what the theory actually claims."

Im not scared.

John

"One of the ways Darwin thought his hypothesis could be proved wrong was if we didn't find massive amounts of transitional fossils in the years following the publishing of his ideas. This has obviously not occurred....."

We havent found MASSIVE amounts of transitional fossils, but we have found a few. Tiktaalik is a GREAT example of a transitional fossil. But your argument is problematic. What do YOU mean by 'massive amounts'? I assume this isnt a direct Darwin quote - if it is could you provide a citation? We are lucky that we have the fossils that we do and they show change over time.

The funny thing is, even if you think that isnt compatible with evolution, you should describe why it is compatible with your theory (ID??)

"You follow one too - it's called philosophic naturalism."

No I dont. I dont deny the possibility of the supernatural but I would say that claiming the supernatural 'exists' in any sense meaningful to us is prone to criticism and boils down to mere assertion.

Howeverm as I have said before, science has at its basis methodological naturalism - science ignores the supernatural precisely because the supernatural is immeasurable and unobservable. That IS NOT defining the supernatural out of existence - it merely says science cant consider it.

I'm not sure how else I can explain it, but it's necessarily true that science ignores and rejects the supernatural a priori. That's methodological naturalism; the assumption that the world is natural for pragmatic purposes. If the rejection of the supernatural was a posteriori, then methodological naturalism wouldn't be an assumption, and it wouldn't be 'methodological', as we would have proven naturalism true.

The determination over whether the universe is material, or immaterial, or some combination of the two, is purely a philosophical issue, and cannot be solved using a tool and method which automatically assumes that the immaterial does not exist. (Of course, this isn't to say that I think science is biased or faulty in any way. Ignoring the possibility of the immaterial and supernatural is necessary for a coherent framework of systematic study - but it does mean that we can't use science to reject things like dualism or spirits).

In summary "If some observed phenomena suggests a supernatural agent" then you aren't doing science.

Mike,

Really?

Moths on trees? Missing fossils? Various other hoaxes?

If you call missing fossils a strawman then I'm not sure what to say......


There are lots and lots of fossils, and, there are lots of gaps there too.


"In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."


"Dawkins believes that the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migratory events rather than evolutionary events..."


Missing fossils are not strawmen, but are simply a piece of data which could be read either way, but, when one is a materialist one must account for it by filling in the gaps with some-thing, any-thing, any-thing at all.


In other words, the fossil records record something other than gradual change. There are many theories of rapid change, but, these are theories even further removed from geological footprints than gradualism, and are thus even more uncertain. What is certain is that there *must* be an explanation other than ID for the philosophical naturalist.

Mike,

It seems from your strawman comment that you deny the gaps within the fossil record. That is what I am questioning. Not necessarily the truth/falsehood of micro-evolution. You seem to believe the fossil record is another piece of evidence *clearly* in favor of Darwin's theory, which it is not as he proposed gradual change throughout.

scbrownlhrm

So your argument is that Darwin got the speed of evolution wrong and that actually the fossil record shows that sometimes the pace of evolution changes and that makes Darwin wrong?! So you are merely concerned by the PACE of evolution, rather than th fact of it (i.e. change over time)

The strawman is this "Don't forget the empty hand reaching up into the air and pulling out punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of fossils in various strata......" PE does NO SUCH THING.

Back up this statement with citations.

There are gaps in the fossil record. Why is that a surprise? Have we finished looking? Do you know how rare fossilization is?

Im not a philosphical naturalist.

If you are a proponent of ID, take the stage and explain how ID accounts for the fossil record.

Mike,


"In summary "If some observed phenomena suggests a supernatural agent" then you aren't doing science."


I agree in part. Yet, there is a bit of nuance we may be missing as far as observed data pointing to something outside of materialism.

Science tells us the following, and the following suggest Immaterial / Non-wave-particle nuances:

The probability (P) of energy being eternal is exactly 0

The probability (P) that [any] universe is eternal is exactly 0

The probability (P) of Some-Thing coming from No-Thing is exactly 0


The probability of Materialism is thus exactly 0.


This does not measure the supernatural, but it tells us the purely natural cannot self-account.


M-Theory is fun to dive into and has much to say of Multiple Distinct Eternals.

"M-Theory is fun to dive into and has much to say of Multiple Distinct Eternals."

Im not a physicist because my maths isnt up to scratch. But I can understand the concepts. And Ive read/listened to enough of Feynman and others to know when its explained well.

"M-Theory is fun to dive into and has much to say of Multiple Distinct Eternals."

This is word salad. What is your point caller? Explain it in simple terms please. And the bit about "non-wave-particle nuances".

It is entertaining to watch the change-over-time of the Naturalist as they address the fossil record. 30 years ago I recall being told in school in no uncertain terms that the record clearly showed, well, everything, and thus proved Darwin's theory outright essentially by itself. Over time that has "softened" and, over some more time, it has morphed into the jello it is now: "There are gaps in the fossil record. Why is that a surprise? Have we finished looking? Do you know how rare fossilization is?"

In other words, if the geographical data (or any data) does not defend one's theory, then we simply do not need that data included in the conversation and can just dismiss it out of hand and we can ignore what that may mean. This is an example of philosophical naturalism at work with various sets of data. The footprints over the last 50 years or so shows the rapid-evolution of the Naturalist as he seeks to survive in his Might-Makes-Right world of ideas.

Mike,

Materialism cannot account for the existence of the material of which it is comprised; which implies (or may imply) Im-material origins.....

scbrownlhrm

1. Who said anything about materialism?
2. What geographical data are you talking about?
3. So because what you recall you were taught in school 30 years ago wasnt the EXACT understanding that science now has, that means things has 'softened' and 'morphed'? By school do you mean university?

Who said materialism: I did. If Materialism cannot self-account, this may imply some other thing than materialism, depending on one’s philosophy. If one is an ID proponent, one may describe materialism as unable to self-account. If one is a philosophical materialist, one will do as the philosophical naturalists do with fossil data: discount it and come up with untestable / non-verifiable theories to fill in the gaps. They may of course be right nonetheless. This is only mentioned to describe how a certain philosophy does shape our “next step” once gaps have been encountered.

Philosophy is hard at work.

Regarding school: Yes. On countless occasions from grade school through college I was assured that the fossil record confirmed Darwin’s theory (gradualism). I even recall diagrams of countless links now known as missing.

The gaps were not mentioned. But, and this is where you are probably unaware given your age, not only were they not mentioned, we were assured the whole line of fossils footprints was there.


This is (was) deceit. Now, deceit is evidence of the philosophical naturalist at work.

Philosophy is hard at work.

It wasn’t that they didn’t get it “exactly” right. It was that they fabricated information. The softening process has thus occurred as the general public grew more educated.

None of this has anything to do with the veracity of micro/macro evolution nor of ID. It has only to do with that which you are yet fighting: Philosophical Naturalism has been hard at work and the fossil record is actually more helpful in proving this than it is in supporting Darwin’s theory (gradualism).

Philosophy is hard at work.

Mike,

It seems you believe I am saying "you" are a philosophical naturalist. I am not. I am only describing how the presence of that element has driven (or drives) many of the "next steps" we see and much of the language we hear in these arenas. The track record of naturalism's hoaxes and other such silliness has nothing to do with the validity of macro/micro evolution, but, it is meaningful to appreciate the presence of this philosophical element in much of how we view data sets. Philosophy is hard at work. Do we really think anyone is immune to this?


scbrownlhrm

"deceit is evidence of the philosophical naturalist at work." errrrrr, ok. *scratches head*

"It was that they fabricated information." How can I tell that you aren't fabricating information to support your point of view? This was 30 years ago. How do you remember with such clarity?

"I even recall diagrams of countless links now known as missing." HOW? It isnt at all possible that your memory has altered? Its definitely your philosophical naturalist teachers telling you lies?! It couldnt be that they were teaching you a simplified version as a vehicle toward deeper understanding? Why are you not similarly annoyed at learning Newtonian Mechanics which is also wrong but a decent enough approximation? Is YOUR philosophy too hard at work perhaps?

BTW, if this WAS a university, I'm astonished. On several levels. And if it was, actually I blame you in equal for not asking for the citations and looking up the information. I used to.

"Philosophical Naturalism has been hard at work and the fossil record is actually more helpful in proving this than it is in supporting Darwin’s theory (gradualism)."

Now you are just blatantly mixing concepts.

1. I have no idea why you keep dragging philosophical naturalism into this.

2. Gradualism - tell me what YOU think Darwin meant by this - define your terms.

3. Yes philosophy sets out the way that science works. But phenomena cant provide evidence for the philosophical underpinnings of science - or philosophy in general. That would be circular. IN ANY CASE Science isn't underpinned by philosophical naturalism - the axiom is methodological naturalism.

4. How can a philosophy be 'hard at work'? Who is leading the charge? A conspiracy of scientists?

5. You need to describe what you mean by that quoted assertion. Complete gobbledegook.

Mike,


"It isnt at all possible that your memory has altered?"

Well, I hope not......

"I am only describing how the presence of that element has driven (or drives) many of the "next steps" we see and much of the language we hear in these arenas."

No, you have made a bunch of baseless assertions and not supported anything. Im not defending Philosophical naturalism, but pointing out that you have not made a case.

"The track record of naturalism's hoaxes and other such silliness has nothing to do with the validity of macro/micro evolution, but, it is meaningful to appreciate the presence of this philosophical element in much of how we view data sets"

Again, you cant just form a sentence with long words and expect me to swallow it. That doesn't make sense. It isnt clear what you a claiming - whether you are claiming a motivation for hoaxters, blaming the scientific process because people hoax? What on earth do you mean?

Mike,

I ended my last paragraph with, "Do we really think anyone is immune to this?"


I meant to say, "Do we really think any of us are immune to this?"


I am not. Nor are the proponents of ID. It can leak through if we do not guard our thoughts and intents. It has leaked through ID proponents.


I will grant you the last word and concede that such elements do not exist now, do not now leak through, and never have existed, and never have leaked through, the proponents of naturalism.


Evolution is a worldview. Stephen Gould knew enough about the subject to admit it.

"I wasnt mentioning Kitzmiller as a defence of Evolutionary Theory (it doesnt need it), more to expose what ID is - i.e. a religious view and not science at all."

The people over at Dembski's website www.uncommondescent.com say "The Theory of Intelligent Design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/id-defined/

Since the focus is on "certain features" and design detection, I would disagree it is a religious view. Mike and Ron H. should take their arguments over there and see how well their remarks hold up.

All views are "religious" that deal with the origins of man. There is a big difference between knowing and believing. This whole debate is nothing more than competing world views. That is something substantial in itself, but still it reduces to to religion.

J.M. Anglin,

Me: If you defend ID, please please tell us: what is the very best it has to offer?

You: J.M. I just don't understand why guys like yourself, Mike and RonH, are so scared to have a discussion about what the theory actually claims. I mean why not attack what they are actually saying!

Me: Again, what is the best ID has to offer? What is the most convincing piece of evidence for ID? What is the strongest reason you can give for me to believe ID is true?

RonH

Mike wrote: "Howeverm as I have said before, science has at its basis methodological naturalism - science ignores the supernatural precisely because the supernatural is immeasurable and unobservable."

Hi Mike, two points;

1. There is nothing inherent or explicit in the scientific method that precludes the supernatural. "Science" does not ignore the supernatural, your philosophy is doing that.

2. How do you know the supernatural is unobservable?

Regards,
John

Mike wrote: "In summary "If some observed phenomena suggests a supernatural agent" then you aren't doing science."

Mike, I don't think you want to go there. Science is no longer useful to mankind when it's primary goal to discover 'what is', is reduced to only confirming what people want to see; not what they actually see.

Hi RonH,

J.M and I are different people, but nevertheless I would love to entertain a conversation with you about ID, but I'm not interested in presenting a dissertation on the subject, as this is just repeating information you can find elsewhere.

In summary (this is my understanding of the theory), ID theory is the idea that many aspects of the natural world appear to be designed and that we can detect and further learn about this feature of the universe through inquiry and the application of the scientific method. No where in the universe do we find design features without intelligence, therefore ID seeks to confirm or prove false the observation of the appearance of design.

This should not be controversial at all. Even Richard Dawkins thinks the universe looks designed. It's just that his contention (and most of the macro camp) is that the design is an illusion and natural processes are behind the illusion.

Let me make one point about this difference; If both sides of the debate agree that the universe and the diversity of life on this planet suggest design and we know that design does not appear without intelligence (or a Mind behind it), then this clearly puts the burden of proof on the macro-evolutionist to prove that our common observation is an illusion.

Do you believe that the appearance of design is an illusion? If so, what ideas produced by the macro-evolutionary hypothesis have convinced you that is the case?

RonH wrote: "...Again, what is the best ID has to offer? What is the most convincing piece of evidence for ID?"

In one word? YOU are the most convincing piece of evidence for ID. From the highly complex lens design of your eyes to your stomach's process of digestion. Every part of your body screams design.

John Willis,

Tell us a story of successful scientific investigation of a supernatural entity. You think this could happen or has happened, right?

If you think this has already happened, then tell that story.

If you think it hasn't happened but could happen, then make up a story and explain how it would play out.

I am specifically interested in how you envision the entity maintains a supernatural nature while it is explored scientifically.

It seems to me that as the scientific understanding of the entity progresses, its supernaturality wanes.

Also, what do you mean in your last by 'what [people] actually see'?

RonH


"If both sides of the debate agree that the universe and the diversity of life on this planet suggest design and we know that design does not appear without intelligence (or a Mind behind it), then this clearly puts the burden of proof on the macro-evolutionist to prove that our common observation is an illusion."

Interesting. There is a burden. It seems un-met as of yet here on this page.


John Willis,

Even Richard Dawkins thinks the universe looks designed.... Do you believe that the appearance of design is an illusion?

Dawkin's wrote...

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

So, he wrote about biology; he did not write about the universe (as you say).

Still, it's too bad he wrote that because it gets thrown back endlessly. And to no end.

Life doesn't look designed to me; it looks evolved. I imagine this is true for Dawkins as well.

History distinguishes the two.

An intelligent designer's career could go straight to homo sapiens if that is his main goal. Evolution didn't have that option and we multiple lines of evidence of our non-human ancestors.

An ID's career could go from life in the ocean to life on land - without transition.

(Why would a designer who is really only interested in homo sapiens put any life in the water anyway?)

Evolution had to make the ocean-land transition gradually and we have evidence that it did.

An ID could go straight to the human eye without dabbling in simpler optics first. Evolution had to do an eyespot apparatus first - among other things. And we have evidence of that history too.

So if 'complicated things' in biology 'give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose' they do so only when viewed apart from their evident historical context.

What do ID people do with this history?

Behe defines irreducible complexity...

A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

There is a history assumed in this definition: that the system's last evolutionary step was the addition of the final part (complete and final) to the rest of the system (complete and final, minus the final part). Evolution has many more options than that (for the last step). So Behe's definition sets up a straw man.

Demski's 'complex specified information' argument is also based on a straw-man history. He calculates some very small probabilities for certain events. But, they are not evolutionary events.

Both Behe and Demski assume a histories of life that deny evolution (they even posit false histories). Small wonder they conclude a different history as well.

RonH

RonH,


It is a good question, but you ask a ruler to measure, in millimeters, my thought earlier today of the meaning of ought. Rulers cannot measure this......


Or maybe this: Tell us how our mathematics introduces us to your Consciousness, to my Consciousness, or how it grants me access to my wife's Consciousness?

There are more modes of knowing, more modes of seeing, than the one-dimensional mode you seem to think capable of swallowing up all of reality.

Logic and Love get us over into Mind and back again........


If materialism is false, and God is, and, if God Is-Love, there must come a point up to which our mathematics can bring us and which it cannot bring us beyond, as the Multiple Dimensions of such Uncreated Personhood would swallow up whole the 0.00001% one-dimensional mode of knowing called mathematics. Our mathematics cannot permit us access to such things unless we get rid of Uncreated Personhood and reduce all personhood to the illusion which the determinism of materialism necessitates, and with that move Thinking too must be enslaved, and fatally so, and we would then know not what we know nor what we know not as all thought and all knowing whatsoever is reduced to the illusion that is the psychic phosphorescence of falling dominos......

RonH,

Regarding steps: you assume to know the psychology of God, and then you use that defintion of His psychology, which you prescribe, to argue against Him. This is an odd mode of debate on your part.

First we hear God does not exist, and then we hear of what His psychology would be if He did exist.

"...it's too bad he wrote that because it gets thrown back endlessly. And to no end..."

Yes, he *did* say that, didn't he.....

The comments to this entry are closed.