Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Academia's Assault on Intelligent Design
Townhall ^ | May 27,2007 | Ken Connor

Posted on 05/28/2007 5:44:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450451-497 last
To: sirchtruth
Odell's explanation made me realize even more how complex life and design are which strengthens the evidence towards intellegent design and why science must be honest about it's precepts and conclusions.

Actually I think you took the opposite message from the lecture than was intended.

The networks he was modeling, unlike a transistor radio, are extremely robust. While the transistor radio fails when one part is misadjusted, the networks that Odell was modeling turned out to be extremely robust. Even with randomly generated parts, it was difficult to create a model one that would not function!

That led to the title of his lecture:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

For the lurkers who have no idea what we are talking about, the link to this lecture is here. It is highly recommended.

451 posted on 06/05/2007 4:42:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Every person alive has 'discovered' the "Galactic Habitable Zone". Nothing new here!

Let’s try something a little ‘new here‘… Instead of spouting off more unfounded statements try to learn something about the GHZ either here or here.

...and was issued a $58,000 grant from the John Templeton Foundation that paid 25 percent of his salary at Iowa State for three years. Furthermore, ISU endorsed his research by administering the grant. I pulled in more than that as a graduate student. No big deal. $58K over six years is less than 10k per year.

You missed the point entirely, but beyond this, you conveniently and intentionally omitted:

Dr Gonzalez authored nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers (21 papers since 2002), co-authored a major college level astronomy textbook, his work led to the discovery of two new planets, his research was featured in Science, Nature, and the cover of Scientific American.

BTW I left out the fact that the book that he coauthored was endorsed by Owen Gingerich, a noted astronomer at Harvard University, and Simon Conway Morris, who is an influential paleontologist at the University of Cambridge.

Now, you stated, ‘Mr. G contributed almost zero to the department in six years.’ I stated ‘I do believe Dr. Gonzales has been treated unfairly due to preconceived beliefs of others.’ Due you realize that you are merely confirming ‘my’ statement?

452 posted on 06/05/2007 4:52:09 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I think the question was deeper about how cells know what to do- excuse me if I’m wrong-

You're not wrong and thank you for the input. I do not have a science background so my explanations will be quite elementry.

The order in which cells operate definately suggests a higher order of design. We can all agree on this. The question then becomes if cells move in a direction toward a higher order of design, how do they know to move in a more complex direction of design? What drives them? Science has not answered this question yet and the observable available evidence definately suggests an intellegence.

For some science to turn a blind eye to or deny any evidence by using the charade of a statement, "There is NO evidence of ID" is not only detrimental to further their research, it's quite a foolish conundrum they place themselves in.

453 posted on 06/05/2007 4:53:59 PM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The networks he was modeling, unlike a transistor radio, are extremely robust. While the transistor radio fails when one part is misadjusted, the networks that Odell was modeling turned out to be extremely robust. Even with randomly generated parts, it was difficult to create a model one that would not function!

Exactly. I understood this, that's why I made the comment about him making me realize how complex life really is. He almost contradicts himself with his "Abstract Math" because what he's proving is the exact opposite of what the lecture's title suggests.

Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.'

This is pure unadulterated subterfuge. It proves how Intellegent the networks to be because of their robust nature! He's just offering one (In my view, false) perspective of how to look at the calculation, that's all this shows.

454 posted on 06/05/2007 5:13:22 PM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Anybody who thinks that achieving tenure is anything other than political is very naive.

If the Doc holds ANY views that displease the powers that be at his university, he’s toast.


455 posted on 06/05/2007 5:44:32 PM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

I’m curious. If people who observe some form of id in the universe and science are immediately (knee-jerk) labeled ‘anti-science’, does that automatically invoke the label of ‘anti-intelligence’ for those who do not? Honestly I don’t see this label cast upon those who disagree with id anywhere close to the degree the ’anti-science’ label is cast out… To paraphrase Berlinsk (a Secular Jew); if we were to replace the word evolution with ‘allah’ and the label of ‘id’ with ‘infidel’ - I don’t think these discussions would read significantly different.


456 posted on 06/05/2007 6:05:21 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
"It proves how Intellegent the networks to be because of their robust nature!"

First you claim that complexity equals intelligence. No reason, just an assertion that because something can be considered complex it must be intelligent.

Now you are equating reliability to intelligence. For some reason, in your mind, if something is robust it is also intelligent. What is next, if it is green it is a result of intelligent design?

In this same statement you confuse the origin and the essence of the systems. Odell was showing that complex, highly robust systems can develop through random, 'undesigned' processes. Your complaint about this is that the robust system is intelligent, not that it requires an intelligent agent to produce such a robust, complex system, but that it is in itself intelligent. If you keep expanding the definition of intelligence you will eventually remove all meaning from the word.

From what I can see you are attempting to validate ID through an appeal to incredulity and an overly broad definition.

To a hammer, everything is a nail. This describes your entire attitude toward ID.

457 posted on 06/05/2007 6:13:38 PM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle. If they scream ignore it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
"If people who observe some form of id in the universe and science are immediately (knee-jerk) labeled ‘anti-science’, does that automatically invoke the label of ‘anti-intelligence’ for those who do not?"

Those that support ID at the level seen on these threads are considered anti-science because, in their recognition that ID is so far not science, and that a change in how science is performed would be necessary for it to be considered science, are proposing that Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science, be scrapped. They are attacking science directly by demanding that the way science is done be changed.

Nice attempt to portray those that don't support ID as against intelligence when you know very well that we are against Intelligent Design, a very specific philosophy, not intelligence. Your tactic is called equivocation.

458 posted on 06/05/2007 6:23:22 PM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle. If they scream ignore it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
In the very post above this one you are claiming that no ‘intelligence’ and no ‘design’ must exist in nature. For two millennia, the design argument provided an intellectual foundation for much of Western thought and was only recently replaced in science by the politics of the ‘young guard’ and the ‘x-club’ that embraced Darwin’s theory as a avenue towards their beliefs.

…an inference of design means that "we wouldn't learn very much about the world", beautifully captures the default position of defenders of materialism.
Their view makes sense, of course, once you assume up front that materialism is really true. (Of course, on that view, religious people believe myths, but evolutionary psychology can explain why they do. We all have the right to our purely private delusions and indulgences.) But in reality, it is merely childish to attribute any feature of the universe to design, just as it would be childish to attribute it to fairies.
And - note this carefully, for this follows too - when we identify evidence that looks like design, we must seek an "explanation" that rules out design, even if it doesn't really work well. That's okay because some day we will have an explanation that rules out design that works a lot better. Otherwise we wouldn't learn very much about the world.
That is actually a classic recipe for a point of view that can never be disconfirmed by evidence. So it is not surprising that materialists insist that the evidence for their point of view and for their creation story (Darwinism) is overwhelming. Following their rules, there is no circumstance under which it could ever be otherwise.
-Denyse


459 posted on 06/05/2007 6:36:55 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
[.. Galileo would be denied tenure also. ..]

Its not easy for anyone with any sense to get tenure in any college in America..
i.e. if you have tenure you are very probably a Moonbat.. or look like one..

460 posted on 06/05/2007 6:37:20 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
if you have tenure you are very probably a Moonbat.. or look like one..

Which leads one to wonder what all the fuss is about.

461 posted on 06/05/2007 6:55:21 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
...how a cell is infused with more and more information from a directionless random natural process.

The cell responds to "stressors." The stressors may be random, but the cell's response is not. For example, cosmic radiation is presumed to strike cells randomly, some mutate as a result and most of the mutations are lethal, but some are not. Those that survive, reproduce and they in turn may also mutate and survive to reproduce, and so it goes on and on. Eventually, the end result may somewhat removed from the original progenitor cell. And that's just in response to one of a whole slew of stressors in the cell's environment.

From the cell's point of view it is to adapt to the stressors in the environment and those which survive are accomplishing that goal by using the information derived from the stressors.

462 posted on 06/05/2007 7:48:28 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
"In the very post above this one you are claiming that no ‘intelligence’ and no ‘design’ must exist in nature.

Hardly. We are a result of natural processes yet we at times show indications of intelligence.

Have I denied that the natural processes we see around us are the result of an intelligent agent? Absolutely.

"For two millennia, the design argument provided an intellectual foundation for much of Western thought and was only recently replaced in science by the politics of the ‘young guard’ and the ‘x-club’ that embraced Darwin’s theory as a avenue towards their beliefs.

The process we now call Methodological Naturalism is a direct offshoot of Newton and other religious scientists who realized that because God is not capricious and would not interfere with the regularity and constancy of nature in such a way as to invalidate their examination of nature God can be ignored within the methods used. Despite what you believe to be the philosophical underpinnings of much of Western thought, the methodology of science was designed, by an intelligence, to minimize the influence of an individual's belief system on the results of his/her science.

Your whining about the putative abandonment of the 'Intelligent Designer (God)' within the practice of science does not invalidate the fact that scientists, even religious scientists, recognize that the Intelligent Designer needs to be removed from the process of examining nature. However if you want to put your Intelligent Designer under the microscope, then the physical evidence of its work can be examined by science. That evidence must be better explained by an intelligence than by non-intelligence for it to be followed. So far we haven't seen such evidence.

Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.

463 posted on 06/05/2007 8:01:38 PM PDT by b_sharp (The last door on your right. Jiggle the handle. If they scream ignore it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

[First you claim that complexity equals intelligence. No reason, just an assertion that because something can be considered complex it must be intelligent]

Technically he’sa asserting what other scientific minds have asserted that observable complexity and design means there is an intelligent design (Which upon close examination does indeed appear to be the case), and that some sort of designer must be present. All machines have a design and involve a designer, and for al lintents and purposes, species are basically machines. Our machiens of course are much more sophisticated than man made machines, and have built in adaption codes that can be influenced by environmental pressures, but all designs have limitations- which is basically what I’ve been trying to opine about. These limitations prevent manipulations beyond species specific limitations- go beyond them and hte design breaks down- this is evidneced by the extreme selective breedings that cause offspring that are much less than the original optimums.

[Those that support ID at the level seen on these threads are considered anti-science because, in their recognition that ID is so far not science, and that a change in how science is performed would be necessary for it to be considered science, are proposing that Methodological Naturalism, which is the foundation of science, be scrapped.]

We’re proposing that methodological naturalism be abandoned? Noone here was stating that, nor are we suggesting that anyone change anythign about science- Tell me, is it a change in science to observe design, carry out experiments that show how manipulating design renders somethign innoperable? Design can be observed and tested on many many levels, from the smallest systems to the most complex. Is it so terrible to have several hypothesis at work in science? The accusation that ID doesn’t perfom science is well, anti science to tell you the truth


464 posted on 06/05/2007 8:44:06 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

[The cell responds to “stressors.” The stressors may be random, but the cell’s response is not.]

Granted, some cells are coded to indeed respond to stressors, and infact to switch functions sometimes, however, it’s clear that many cels don’t- cells which would have been necessary to change in order for hte next higher form of life to evolve. As well, I again must point out that the coding that allows cells to adapt and survive, must have coem from somwhere, and one should ask where? If a cell doesn’t have the necessary info to begin with, it will not be able to adjust and survive- One must also take into concideration that the amount of changes in higher in higher lifeforms is simply staggering- simply too much to account for the cause being random mutations and environmental stresses. Most of the cells present in differing species don’t change according to stressors.

I can see where you’re going with htis, and yes, it’s a hypothesis that does make soem sense incertain cases, but I’m afraid I have to dissagree with the premise


465 posted on 06/05/2007 8:53:17 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
If there's no response, there's no stressor, by definition.

As well, I again must point out that the coding that allows cells to adapt and survive, must have coem from somwhere...

The "coding" lies in the cell's response to the stressor, if the response allows the cell to survive then it survives and reproduces its attributes, including the "coding."

I don't see the need to add the concept, 'that the coding must have come from somewhere.' The cell cannot foresee all possible stressors, (in fact it foresees none) and many cells' responses are not sufficient for survival---but those that are, do survive. You might call that process, "accidental." I would call it incidental to being alive.

466 posted on 06/05/2007 9:18:16 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
You missed the point entirely, but beyond this, you conveniently and intentionally omitted: Dr Gonzalez:

-authored nearly 70 peer-reviewed papers (21 papers since 2002),

How many of the 21 was he NOT the primary author. How many were in sub-tier publications? How many were really short letters rather than scientific papers?

co-authored a major college level astronomy textbook, his work led to the discovery of two new planets, his research was featured in Science, Nature, and the cover of Scientific American.

Co-authoring a textbook is NOT research. What new research did he accomplish at ISU?

467 posted on 06/05/2007 9:33:37 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

BTW, the amount of grants pulled in by Dr. G was a factor of more than 100 less than the average of the rest of the staff during his time at ISU.


468 posted on 06/05/2007 9:35:41 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
A confirming observation: the tenured chief of my clinic at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, failed to get his grant renewed.

I asked, "So what happens now?"

"I don't get a paycheck," he replied.

469 posted on 06/05/2007 9:44:30 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

[The “coding” lies in the cell’s response to the stressor, if the response allows the cell to survive then it survives and reproduces its attributes, including the “coding.”]

The concept you’re suggesting is that all advancements to higher forms (although there could also be lower degredation as well) come from stressors increasing information in cells, and if that were the case, then we would be able to demonstrate evolution from one species to another through experiments. Also the problem comes in that only species specific changes can happen to gene coding for which the species has been already coded to accept- if evolution through gene changes through stressors to cells were a reality, then we certainly would be able to demonstrate this process today- but the fact is that we can not demonstrate any addition of NEW non species specific changes that would result in new organs and systems that are unique to other species only.

Again I must point out that not all advancement in evolution hypothesis is based on stressors- those who beleive in evolution contend that environmental pressures necessitate adaption that leads to evolution- this need isn’t a direct stressor on the suppsoed systems that some say evolved such as first feathers then wings (although I’m not sure what the pressing need to fly was when so much food is available on the ground- but that’s another story). So supposedly, added information comes from environmental induced needs that urge a species to only accept mutational mistakes that would advantage them- although one really needs to ask- since evolution supposedly takes millions of years, wouldn’t those ‘needs’ be changing in all that time while a species awaited their feathered wings? If the need to evolve is so great at a given time, and it takes millions of years to evolve something like wings, then it would seem that those individuals that could overcome the fact that they didn’t their required wings in time would have no logner needed wings because they would have found other resources to survive.


470 posted on 06/05/2007 11:21:19 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Interesting reply--I'll only get to part of it tonight.

You might find it it interesting to read Hans Selye's works: General Adaptation Syndrome; Stress, Distress and Eustress (I think that's the order in the title.); The Stress of Life (His most famous work.)

Environmental pressures are stressors.

Consider Walter B. Cannon's concept of Homeostasis, an idealized steady state of a given organism's physiology where all is stress-free: no hunger, no cold, no thirst, no distress, etc., etc. The fact is the organism, in maintaining its own life in an ever-changing environment is constantly working toward homeostasis but, of course, never achieves it because of the rapid flux of changing conditions, both internal and external.

but the fact is that we can not demonstrate any addition of NEW non species specific changes that would result in new organs and systems that are unique to other species only.

Say what?

471 posted on 06/05/2007 11:44:43 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
First you claim that complexity equals intelligence.

No I do not!! I claim complexity is evidence of intellegence.

Odell was showing that complex, highly robust systems can develop(e) through random, 'undesigned' processes.

You're totally missing my point! Odell has an "opinion" which I do not agree with. I believe intellegent information is introduced and nothing in his mathematics refutes my claim. I might not have been as clear as I should have been. Odell was pointing out the Complexity of these sytems, but didn't ever resolve the question of "how" they become so complex. All he does in his "Abstract Mathematics" is push a conjectural notion, "that complex, highly robust systems can develope through random, 'undesigned' processes." Which I will admit, I do not understand how he showed this...or if he really ever did. His evidence for showing "random undesigned processes" must have flown completely over my head. If you know what evidence he presented, please tell me.

My point simply is by his investigation he just showed even more how complex these processes and systems to be.

472 posted on 06/06/2007 3:04:47 PM PDT by sirchtruth (No one has the RIGHT not to be offended...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
You stated, ‘Mr. G contributed almost zero to the department in six years.’.

And again (and again, and again) you are wrong.

473 posted on 06/07/2007 9:58:49 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Your whining about the putative abandonment of the 'Intelligent Designer (God)' within the practice of science does not invalidate the fact that scientists, even religious scientists, recognize that the Intelligent Designer needs to be removed from the process of examining nature.

Whining? Do you deny that an intelligent cause ‘was’ a given within science for two millennia and proceeded Christianity? Are you so naive to think that modern scientists do not see any intelligence or any design in our existence (or would you prefer all to focus only on those who do not)? Even agnostic Greek philosophers made reference to a ’prime mover’ at the beginning.

Beyond this, what are we to do with those who believe in human consciousness within the recently imposed Methodological Naturalism constraints? Are those who ‘believe’ human consciousness the next in line for the ‘anti-science’ label? Surely you realize that human consciousness under the current paradigm must merely be an "emergent property" of the complexity of the processes and structures underlying its expression. IOW our intelligence (morality, love, altruism, etc..) must ultimately come from this unintelligent and un-designed universe. Obviously those who believe otherwise must believe in a soul or some sort of dualism that cannot exist in Methodological Naturalism and must therefore be labeled as anti-science.

Heck, let’s just take a look at how ‘current’ science defines our human consciousness as qualitative piece parts:

DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"

PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)

This is what you are left with… Human consciousness; it’s all an illusion that exists for no ultimate reason. We, as humans, ‘think/believe’ we fortuitously stumbled accidentally upon this via science. To ‘believe’ that our morals, the beauty that we see, art, literature, and science itself came from something other than a mindless cause is heresy within this ‘current’ paradigm of science.

Come up with some good evidence for your ID's existence and science will consider design in nature.

No… This is ‘current’ science and 'your' philosophy - so you must tell us all how we evolved our morality and how it is actually an illusion because morality does not actually exist in the universe we live in… The ownness is with you.

474 posted on 06/07/2007 10:29:25 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

morality consists of a universal moral code- some might argue “Well there are cultures that don’t concider murder/rape etc wrong, so morality is a subjective ideal, however, this is a false argument as those who have come out of such cultural practices have testified that even though it was an accepted norm to commit these attrocities, and everyone encouraged it, something deep inside them told them it was wrong and that they never felt right about it. Philosophers have argued about whether morality was a subjective or objective truth for a long time now, and there is more evidence indicating that it is indeed an objective unioversal moral code and not some drummed up evolutionary process- Dawkins has tried desperately to argue that emotions have ‘evolved’ and that there are genes that control things like selfishenss and morality- however, this simply isn’t the case- Some have also argued that folks with frontal lobe damage aren’t capable of morality, however this is also false, and they know right from wrong still, but choose not to take part in a morally driven society anymore.


475 posted on 06/08/2007 9:39:01 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

I won’t be commenting much further on this, but I wanted to address the accusations that ID isn’t a estifiable science, and to show that the accepted Methodological Naturalism, somethign some suggest is the golden goose of science, is such a narrow tunnel vision that it doesn’t result in objective science.

If an investigator were to try to discover a designer of say a watch, but instead of objectively looking for the designer, were to exclude all people of color, and only look for a white designer thinking that only suc a person could design the watch, then this would not be concidered an objective search, but rather a priori belief that quite frankly blinds the investigator to all evidences along the way that might point to the designer as being someone of a different race.

The same thing holds true for discovering where we came from. If you are going to immediately exclude the possibility that the designer of all the designs we see in nature might be something other than methedological naturalism, then you’ve set yourself up in a position of subjectivity instead of practicing a completely honest system of objective science.

Now, to state that it’s impossible to investigate a supernatural creator is quite frankly reiculous. We have the modern technology to replicate and investigate occurances such as creation by following evidences such as radiation that would be left over from a massive energy utilizing/consuming event, we can study the after effects, calculate and measure the results, and even predict what we should find for evidences. As I mentioned in a post several pages ago, a student has written a thesis on how light wasa produced through a massive event that caused somnolumenscence (sp?). This has been reproduced in labs, and has shown how massive pressure on water can cause the bubbles to produce luminescence.

While God worked outside of the natural laws in some instances, He did utilize natural laws, and we can investigate and conclude with a reasonable amount of credibility, that what we know today can be explained by creation through design.

You might find this astonishing, but science has been investigating the world of science going on the premise that design is present, and they have made many important discoveries going on this premise. Mathemeticians have known for a very long time that there is a mathematical design in nature, and bioscience has known this as well. One doesn’t have to believe their is a spiritual premise to the design in order to investigate the design and come to reasonable and intelligent conclusions.

Being objective means not excluding a reasonable hypothesis simply because one believes in a priori conclusion, but rather investigating ALL angles, exploring ALL plausible leads, and using the science to investigate the very fingerprints of origins. Adopting the idea that a person of color simply couldn’t produce a watch leaves one blind and non objective, and opens them up to practicing a biased 1/2 science that simply isn’t up to the acedemic standards of true objective investigation.

The role of objective science is to concider and scientifically investigate all probable explanations/hypothesis, and to conceed when an hypothesis is problematic enough that another hypothesis is a real enough alternative as to warrent at least an investigation. That’s simply not what we see in regards to ID.

Admittedly, there are many problems with Evolution hypothesis, and not just some podunk minor problems that are of little consequence.

Evolutions god, being nature itself, has some evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far far from conclusive.

ID’s God, Being God Hismelf, has soem evidences that are indeed tantilizing, but far from conclusive.

Both sicneces will have both weak and strong scientific evidneces which support their hypothesis, and prop up their models, but neither will have conclusive irrefutable evidence presicesly because they both are investigating the inner workings of phenomena. The hypothesis of descent from common ancestry is a weak proposal based on anectdotal evidences that are subjectively interpreted- ID’s hypothesis the same. There is a mathematical element to everythign we see, and Darwinism simply doesn’t account for the fact that mathematics can’t be accounted for by natural means. It can be argued of course that nature can randomly create mathematically designed systems, however, Darwinism offers no reasonable falsifiable tests to test for this known fact, thereby rendering their hypothesis weakly supported by anectdotal evidences which are subject to subjective interpretations which objiosly vary from one scientist to another. I say ‘weak’ because there are no obvious scientific facts that can concretely and decisively define the phenomena of life origins.

It has been said that evolution provides the best predictabilities, however, while some predictions have been discovered, so have predictions for ID, and even for creation. The predictabilities don’t offer proof of origins for evolution, they simply offer predictabilities for natural selection- not macroevolution. The predictabilities are common sense sinsibilities in regards to natural selection, which as we all know, is a scientific fact that has been verified beyond reasonable doubt.

Design, as we are finding out more and more through careful scinetific analysis, is intelligent in nature, and is a reality, and science is going to be forced to explain or at least give their opinion as to how random mutations can account for it’s presence. Hopefully, they will do this objectively in the future, but so far, all they are offering is a biased and subjectively motivated antagonism to a ligitimate competing hypothsis, and they are using a method that does not have a true objective scientific basis.

Methodological Naturalism is a practice of science that seeks to promote only one way of interpreting the evidences, and seeks to exclude any other hypothesis from any sort of concideration. This practice isn’t science, it is a form of dogmatic religious reasoning.


476 posted on 06/08/2007 12:16:21 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
...and science is going to be forced to explain or at least give their opinion as to how random mutations can account for it’s presence.

You should check out the review of Behe's new book in Science.

477 posted on 06/08/2007 12:22:30 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Great link. It shows that the average professor brings in 1.3 million while Dr. G brings in less than 1/10 as much! No someone that is performing up to the standard of his peers. Don’t you believe in hiring the most qualified?


478 posted on 06/08/2007 1:08:33 PM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Design, as we are finding out more and more through careful scinetific analysis, is intelligent in nature, and is a reality, and science is going to be forced to explain or at least give their opinion as to how random mutations can account for it’s presence. Hopefully, they will do this objectively in the future, but so far, all they are offering is a biased and subjectively motivated antagonism to a ligitimate competing hypothsis, and they are using a method that does not have a true objective scientific basis.

Stick to your day job; don't count on a career in science.

Perhaps you should discount a job as an editor/proofreader/technical writer as well.

Seriously, the understanding you exhibit of science, and how science works, is minimal. You have apparently settled on a particular religious belief, and you twist and bend scientific evidence until it agrees with your preordained conclusions. In the process it ceases to be science and becomes pure apologetics.

Believe what you want, but don't try to pretend it is science.

479 posted on 06/08/2007 10:11:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Gee- insults- Gosh- those refute the issues being discussed so brilliantly coyote- thanks for dropping by and contributing so much intellectual prowess- now run along back to DC- the back-slap-fest going on over there misses your kiddie rhetoric


480 posted on 06/08/2007 11:28:57 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[Believe what you want, but don’t try to pretend it is science.]

Thanks- I will- apparently you’ll beleive what you want and pretend it’s ‘science’ too- Hey- got a cynodont and a therapsid, gosh, they look similiar, despite being seperated by millions of years, why by golly, there’s the link we’ve all been waiting for to show the evolution of reptiles to mammals-

Woopsie- someone forgot to mention the Cynodont has no direct relative before it, and woopsie number 2, someone forgot to mention that the examples given were seperated by whole continents, and were found in layers that didn’t match the timelines, and that oceans seperated the species- Shall I go on coyote? Or are the scienctific FACTS too deep for you? Twisting the evidences Coyote? Who’s the one twisting again? Who’s the one NEGLECTING to FULLY inform the public about ALL the facts because they aren’t conducive to the accepted hypothesis of evolution? Pfffff- Accuse all you like- the only one pretending their science is sound are those who throw out easily refuted ‘evidences’ and pretend there aren’t serious problems, and those who prove exactly what I said, that when they got nothing, they resort to childish petty ad hominem attacks exactly you did- thatnks for proving me correct again!


481 posted on 06/08/2007 11:36:03 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Let’s just define whos being the apologist here coyote- As I said- you’re the pot calling the kettle black.

Us: The cambrian explosion shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional highly complex species.

You (and other evolution apologists): Well, evolution ‘could have happened but the for some reason species weren’t fossilized before the Cambrian episode” Drum roll please...... Apologist! Is there any evidence to back this statement up? Why No, no there isn’t- it’s a leap of blind faith!

Us: It is biologically impossible for a species to gain NEW non species specific organs and systems through a series of random mutations.

You (and other evolution apologists): Well, Evolution “could have done created new organs IF given enough time, and IF enough benificial mutations accumulated” Do you or anyone else offer ANY proof that accumulations of mutations can produce the biologically impossible? Nope- not an iota of evidence. The best you can do is throw out examples of microevolution and assert that Macroevolution- something that has NEVER been proven to occure, is one in the same when infact it clearly isn’t. When htis is repeatedly brought to your attention, all we get is foot stomping insistence that micro and macro are the same, and we get petty little insults thrown our way. Drum roll please.... Apologist!!!

Us: It is both mathematically impossible for mutations to accumulate enough that even one minor functioning new system could evolve in a species that simply doesn’t have hte code for the new system, and irreducible complexity shows that without all the pieces in place, species specific systems could not function.

You (and other evolution apologists): Behe is a big poopie head and pseudoscientist. New organs that species aren’t coded for could happen, all you have to do is click your heels and believe that time cures all impossiblities. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!

Us: Interdependent chemicals within the body, such as seen in the eye in abundance, simply would have no functions if the other dchemicals that they rely on were not present and performing organ specific functions. We ask how long a time it would take for all the components of the eye to assemble while each interdependent part and chemical waited around for everythign to assemble BY CHANCE

You (and other evolution apologists): Light sensitive skin patches prove the eye evolved. Anyone that says different and doesn’t believe that and questions the science is ignorant. Some of the chemicals and parts COULD HAVE had otehr functions, although admittedly, we have no proof that they did. Drum roll please.... Apologist!!!

Us: There is no direct link between the Cynodont, the favorite species of ear evolution advocates, that could have preceeded the Cynodont, yet amazingly, the chart used to show the suppsoed ear evolution contains species that we’re told preceeded the Cynodont, because the chart would simply break down when trying to show a supposed ear evolution if species were not shown preceeding the Cynodont. Furthermore, what is hidden from the public is the fact that all the intermediary species that showed a VERY clear reversal of suppsoed jaw bone migration. Furthermore, we’re not told that the species in the supposed ear system evolution chart were found continents apart, and in the wrong layers which were simply explained away by ‘environmental phenomena’ (It would appear that if you wish hard enough, and twist hte evidence, hide refuting evidneces, and neglect to mention certain facts, that the impossible could then become the possible)

You (and other evolution apologists): Arrrrgh- you know nothing about how eovlution happens. There are branches on the tree of life, and although not perfect, and although there are missing links and gaps, ear evolution happened- you’re just being difficult. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!

Us: The supposed early earth conditions were absolutely non conducive and hostile to any beginnings of life, and furthermore, it is bioilogically impossible for the cell membranes needed for life to function on even the lowest levels to take place. Lab experiments have ignored many impossible facts in an effort to produce idealized membranes that ignore the natural supposed progressions of biologically possible membranes. The idealized membranes produced by lab technicians could not have happened. Fatty acids could not have survived in the environment needed for the miraculous evolution of fatty acids from chemicals, let alone the furhter problems associated with membranes that couldn’t transport waste or induce movements and transportation of material. The abolute minimum requirements for self replicating organisms was simply biologically impossible given the environment and hostile elements that would have annihilated any begginings of life on the molecular level. Provided though, that these impossibilities were somehow miraculously overcome, we then come to the impossiblities of amino acids surviving in a hostile enivironment long enough for evolution to miraculously morph them into protiens while the evolution of DNA miraculously took place from nothing.

Concidering that molecules can’t reproduce without the help of numerous other molecules critical to multiplying,, and concidering that it’s hard enough hypothesising about just one molecule evolving from chemicals, how is it possible that one cell, comprised of thousands of atoms, somehow got hundreds of amino acids to align in the precise order, all doing their specifc part by providing a cell membrane, synthesizing fats, providing energy, synthesizing the building blocks of DNA the nucleotides, and synthesizing proteins, worked to produce a viable cell membrane conducive to life advancement up through the hostile ladder of evolution in an effort to, in the words of one fella, climb mount improbable?

You (and other evolution apologists): Abiogenisis isn’t a part of the study of evolution. Besides, that’s not my field, so I don’t have to comment on that- Phew, dodged that bullet. Drum roll please... Apologist!!!

Us: What about the problem of the same genes in different species performing the same functions despite differing in their molecules being alined differently? How bout the same molecules performing different functions? How about the hemoglobin of yeast being nearly identical to human hemoglobin? How about the fact that the divergences were predicted, and show, not a nice smooth gradual progression from original species, but a ragged, divergent, unexplained pattern that defies the proposed evoltuion of species to higher orders. Proposed homologous systems are infact, non-homologous genetic systems.

You (and other evolution apologists): Um, divergence isn’t my field of expertise- hang on, I’ll find an article that ridicules.... er I mean proposes yet another impossible workaround to those problems that defy the laws of biological reality and rely on the age old notion that “Time + Mutations soles everything”. Yuo have terrible spelling, and thusly, noone should concider any of the facts you present and instead discount you because you don’;t take the time to correct your typing mistakes!!! (Brilliant refutation of the facts) Drum roll [please.... Apologist!!!

“”Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques” by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.” - The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. “”

But But, Wait a minute... I thought evolution science was strict science- testing, falsifying, experimenting? But what does my eye spy? An admission that laws and experiments can’t be performed? They are unverifiable and unfalsifiable? Gee- whoda thunk that the evolution proponents engage in the very thing that they accuse ID’ers of doing? Pots calling Kettles balck once again!

“”We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” - Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31””

You’re right Coyote- I guess I didn’t know how evolution works. I assumed it sought truth. Apparently, to folks like you however, it works by wishing on a star, ignoring massive gaps, ignoring evidences that refute proposed hypotheses, and ignores biological impossibilities. Apparently the god called TIME is enough to overcome impossibilities and apparently placing dissimiliar species next to each other, and pointing out a few commonalities while ignoring the billions of genetic dissimilarities, is enough to convince those such as yourself who need for there to be no God in the equation. Apparently whining about opposing posts and calling the poster ignornat is enough to refute biological impossibilities. I guess I was in the dark about what ‘real science’ is all about - thanks for setting me straight- I was blind, but now I see. Onward evolution soldiers. So please, keep crying about how ID folk are ‘apologists’ - it’s quite funny.


482 posted on 06/09/2007 11:35:16 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
I have time for one response, so I'll take your first claim:

The cambrian explosion shows an explosion of fully formed, fully functional highly complex species.

Your claim is false, as is so often the case.

The following information should help to clarify the actual facts of the matter. This is from Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak. In particular, this information is from Claim CC300. You see, there have been so many false claims made by creationists that they have been arranged and numbered, with detailed refutations.

I don't expect you to accept this, or much of anything else that science shows; I am posting this for the lurkers.

Response:

  1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

  2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

  3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

    Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

    And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

  4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

  5. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

    • The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.

    • Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.

    • The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.

    • Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

    • Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).

    • Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).

    • Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).

  6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

  7. Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).


See the original article for the references.

483 posted on 06/09/2007 12:18:49 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Cripes- noone said it was the origin nor that there weren’t earlier MICROBIAL life- that’s your problem you twist what is said, ignore the important issue being discussed, and pretend there aren’t problems with the FACT that the cambrian explosion of FULLY FORMED species in the hundreds is a problem for the ‘molecule to man’ hypothesis. The claim that there was an explosion IS NOT false- You know, you keep throwing out petty little insults claiming we’re ignorant, but the fact that you can’t even follow a conversation honestly, and the fact thaT you make claims about what we say that are blatantly false shows once again that you’re either blatantly dishonest, or you simply have an issue with following conversations precisely.

[The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.]

Lol- yeah- there’s such an abundance of fossils of predators in the ‘precambrian’ era.

[Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.]

Oh this is getting funny- Yup- too small to see, yet the Cambrian explosion consits of fossils all not only visible to the naked eye, but much much larger than microbial finds that are reputed to be ‘precambrian’ nased on the highly *cough* reliable dating methods

[Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today.]

BS- nearly every form found in the cambrian strata are near identicle to the species we have today- some species of the cambrian era went extinct, others- infact most, have survived today showing ONLY small MICROEVOLUTIONARY changes.

The rest is NOTHING but assumptions and speculations proposed as a means to prop up a hypothesis in trouble lol


484 posted on 06/09/2007 12:55:17 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

pre cambrian- microbes microbes microbes, Cambrian- WHAM! Fully formed highly complex and functional species- Worms with legs? Egads- ya got us there with that stunning evidence-


485 posted on 06/09/2007 12:57:27 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Has anyone here who says ID is not science read anything written by these people in support of the theory and research plan of ID outside of some pop-sci article in a MSM newspaper? These folks are scientists with credentials, degrees and boxloads of letters after their names. The papers they write cite scientific literature: chapter, verse, and page number. They dream the molecular structure of mitochondria, the phase space of protein folding and the big numbers at the extent of the universe. They are not trailer park young-earthers with fabricated human/dinosaur fossils next to their King James Bibles. I don’t care what you think you learned in your undergrad Biology 101 class or how many Federal Megabucks you have spent cranking out interminable DNA-sequencing boilerplate, the universe remains unexplained and Reality/Truth will still every generation rise up and surprise the lethargic and comfortable academics who have papered their offices with back-patting certificates of achievement in MSS (mainstream science).
Science is not done. All is not discovered. Roger Penrose himself knows there are holes and if the name is unfamililar perhaps you aren’t as book-larned up as you might be.
The same people at FR who disdain Global Warming “science” because those scientist are distorting their science in pursuit of grant money get all warm and fuzzy about Darwinians like Richard Dawkins who are doing the same thing.
You cannot argue both that 1) ID is not science because it isn’t published and 2) that ID should not be published because it is not science.

(Hit and run posting)


486 posted on 06/09/2007 1:02:32 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example ]

Oh this is precious- hypothesising about somethign with no evidence- ‘Major radiation’ occured causing an explosion of fully formed highly complex NEW species? lol- Yup- there’s just whole buildings right chock full of the mutant freaks that would have been caused by such massive radiation, and we know from radiation experiments that NEW species KINDS evolve rapidly and fully formed (sarcasm- all we got were mutated freaks of the SAME species)

You don’t expect me to accept it? Gee I wonder why.

Evos speculating on what happend with no evidences to back it up- Perfectly acceptable- ID’ers speculating about what happend- not acceptable. Why by golly we’re just swimming in a pre life soup of chemicals here aint we?


487 posted on 06/09/2007 1:05:34 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Aloysius88

[Has anyone here who says ID is not science read anything written by these people in support of the theory and research plan of ID outside of some pop-sci article in a MSM newspaper?]

Oh, they read it, but they ignore the science and glom onto moot points like hte fact that a suggestion that anythign but the impossible model of evolution should be mentioned renders the science invaLID. Some here are obsessed with the scientists personal opinions or the fact that they sign statements of faith as though it would render the science FACTS discovered and examined by ID’ers invalid. The priori belief and dogmatic adherence to the god called mutations is just too strong to allow a focus on the science. Even supreme court judges aren’t imune to ignoring the science while focussing on NON issues that have NOTHING to do with hte science being presented.


488 posted on 06/09/2007 1:09:49 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

It was my impression that science was attempting to make statements regarding reality. If science is merely about rules then you are correct, we have no argument.

You can sit with the rules committee making pronouncements about who can and cannot play your game while we will attempt to understand the universe and reality using mathematics, game theory, information theory, computer science or whatever else we can get our minds around.

You stand by your peer-reviewed journals and your accredited institutions chasing off anyone too ignorant to realize they are nilkultoorni and should remain silent in front of their betters.


489 posted on 06/09/2007 1:11:42 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

There are no repeatable, laboratory experiments regarding the evolution of species either. Theories explain anomalies in data. Life is an anomaly. You cannot create it in a lab. Therefore all of your theories regarding life are unscientific.


490 posted on 06/09/2007 1:14:21 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Not to show up late to the party but the system that the simulation ran on was intelligantly designed (I hope). Many arguments regarding the efficacy of computer modeling neglect the fact that in the world although systems/algorithms may exhibit persistence and robustness some THING must preexist the system and that thing is the mechanism that runs the algorithm.

Excuse me if I am not clear, but the point is that even though your algorithm returns a result that looks like bird-flocking behavior, it only means you have discovered a bit of programming that imitates behavior. It doesn’t mean you have anything to say about the lving meat-machine that runs the natural algorithm.

Natural systems run on meat-machines. Computer programs run on human-designed electrical machines. The argument is about the nature of the machine. If you want to argue about algorithms you have joined the ID community in admitting that algorithms run on Designed Machines.


491 posted on 06/09/2007 1:30:51 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

This is a true explanation of evolution of species if and only if all information regarding the construction of an offspring is contained in DNA coding. This is not establlished. In addition your statement “most of the mutations are lethal, but some are not” is inexact from a mathematical standpoint. The real numbers reflect a statement more like, “ mutations resulting in significant differences that do not actually kill the offspring are astronomically unlikely, while some trivial modifications do occur very rarely.”
Before you begin the infinite monkeys argument please be aware that I am aware that the time allotted for mutation to play its species game is 1 billion years more or less from the Cambrian explosion until now. Not much time at all for a stepwise approach to making a behemoth out of a multicelled bug.


492 posted on 06/09/2007 1:41:22 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

This is a true explanation of evolution of species if and only if all information regarding the construction of an offspring is contained in DNA coding. This is not establlished. In addition your statement “most of the mutations are lethal, but some are not” is inexact from a mathematical standpoint. The real numbers reflect a statement more like, “ mutations resulting in significant differences that do not actually kill the offspring are astronomically unlikely, while some trivial modifications do occur very rarely.”
Before you begin the infinite monkeys argument please be aware that I am aware that the time allotted for mutation to play its species game is 1 billion years more or less from the Pre-cambrian explosion until now. Not much time at all for a stepwise approach to making a behemoth out of a multicelled bug.


493 posted on 06/09/2007 1:47:21 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Aloysius88

“It was my impression that science was attempting to make statements regarding reality. If science is merely about rules then you are correct, we have no argument.”

More precisely, science is an abstract. Like mathematics or even painting a picture, the purpose of an abstract is not to define, but to describe. A picture of a flower is not the flower itself, it is just one way of describing the flower.

The problem happens when someone looks at the painting and says, “That is a flower.” It is not a flower, it is a picture of a flower.

And believe me, this is such an important distinction that JHVH Himself remarked on it, in a way, to Moses. When Moses asked God his name, he replied with the statement “I AM THAT I AM”. And that is a profoundly philosophical statement.

The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber wrote a thin book entitled “I and Thou”, which was a remarkably easy read for the profoundly deep thought that went in to his analysis of personal pronouns. It can be read in a few minutes, but only understood after days of slow and deliberate consideration.

In any event, the statement “I AM THAT I AM” defines reality as a product of God. But it also puts man in a quandary, namely that while God defines reality, He leaves it up to us to describe reality, through the use of abstracts.

This was a philosophical dilemma that was only finally met by Rene Descartes, when he pronounced the very similar “I think, therefore I am.” In effect, this arrogant statement said that man, not God, defines, not just describes reality. This caused a revolution in philosophy, allowing philosophers to “write God out of the equation.”

Since that time, however, people have been so confident of their abstracts that they assume they actually create reality. But this has never really been the case, to those who understand what abstracts really are.

If you ask them, people also say that “the sun comes up in the morning”, even though must of them know better, that the Earth turns.


494 posted on 06/09/2007 1:50:35 PM PDT by Popocatapetl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

[Since that time, however, people have been so confident of their abstracts that they assume they actually create reality.]

To go ALong with this idea, people have tried to argue that morals evolved and are subjective, andit is up to hte individual to define the morals that one abides by. Dawkins tried doing this when he argued for a ‘selfish gene’ and tried to assert that God was nothjing more than a delusion of the poor unfortunate lesser evolved folks who can’t escape the chains of mass hysteria that drives poor sheeple to think there is a God.

The depths of Dawkins arrogance and delusional self superiority know no bounds, but unfortunately for him, He’ll discover too late that genes don’t dictate what the Great I Am is.


495 posted on 06/09/2007 4:51:19 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

Dawkins understood that morals were not subjective, and that the argument for subjective morals had failed, so he, in his bias against Christians, devised an unprovable, untestable hypothesis that religion was a result of genes (Which he amusingly suggested could be passed along as though they were a contagion- like catchign the common cold from others. lol)

There really is nothign new under the sun- The arguments for subjective morality have failed, and the ‘selfish gene’ and the ‘God gene’ are nothign more than an attempt to revive the old argument that there is no God, and that we, being god-like, could determine our own fortunes by controlling something like a God-Gene and erradicating it from our lives so that we can supposedly become absolutely free. The problem is that poor Dawkins doesn’t realize that ‘freeing’ oneself from a good and loving God only leads to a bondage that can only lead to eternal death. Freedom from God is no freedom at all, yet people like Dawkins will argue until their dying breath that we are mini-gods and can define our own existences how we like without a need for the great I AM. Trying to define morality by arguing that an evolving gene is to ‘blame’ for universal moral codes is nothing new- it’s just the same old tired out excuses that are just said in a different way.


496 posted on 06/09/2007 5:04:17 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Popocatapetl

As I understand Descartes’ program of radical doubt he came to the end of it when he realized that he could not doubt his own existence. The trouble is that in using the words “Cogito ergo sum” he used WORDS. The language he used came from outside himself. That language could only be maintained by something that transcended his existence. The concept of a private language is absurd.
We face a similar problem. Man may manipulate the language of science, but what we are calling attention to is the fact that the language itself, the universe itself, transcends science.
This science as defined has a limited aim. That is fine. The trouble is when science so-defined arrogates to itself the right to define reality. And usurps the responsibility of parents to convey their understanding of reality to their children.


497 posted on 06/09/2007 6:59:01 PM PDT by Aloysius88 (An oak desk makes a fine percussion instrument in an emergency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450451-497 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson