The New Epigenetic Lie: How Easily a Failure Becomes a Friend

Gary, "....but that’s nothing like the burning people alive and other brutality that your road takes us all back down again." Sadly, Gary, you are right, it is Christians who trample Christ's name underfoot. Jesus healed as many as He could, and even made good the ear of the soldier which Peter had cut off, demonstrating Jesus had superior intelligent understanding of human medical biology. However, He demonstrated He could evolve a new species, instantly, made in the image of God: perfect, twice. The first, at the Incarnation, as God-Man, a new species never before seen. Finally, at the resurrection, when He generated in a quantum leap, a brand new species; the divine human; complete with a dual body, to traverse instantly spirit and matter. With power like that, who needs the agony of blood letting evolutionary theory in order to make us more fitter to kill: first as beasts, such as, crocodiles, whales, and lately monkey types, all in order to be make better humans? Certainly not a good intelligence. mw

mw:

I am sorry, Gary, if my post sounded offensive. In fact your reply is quite gentle compared to the abuse I have experienced from fellow Catholics on the matter.

Yes I know a Catholic paleontologist who has good reasons to consider your plan to define science as you please in order to turn Catholic children into stone throwing vigilantes to be a danger to society. You might call the opinions from others that question your mental health to be "abuse" but that's nothing like the burning people alive and other brutality that your road takes us all back down again. Like they say: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. GaryGaulin

Hi Gary # 80: "You really should try to understand how historic tragedies begin with bully-pulpit threats against others like yours" You mean the historical tragedy of the God-Man being crucified by the intelligent chiefs of the time? Did He bully anyone into believing, no, He let them pass, and died for everybody. So many believe. There is no intended threat, I simply state truths, believed given by a super intelligence, beyond our understanding. Is it not true, that there are basic unprovable flaws in the main pillars of the theory of evolution? Therefore, if so, true science will expose, and continues to expose such flaws. That is not a threat, that is a fact; bornagain77 does it regularly; and as mentioned at the start. However, that does not say there are not credible persuasions to such science. Still, what will always remain, is choice, because origins will always be shrouded in mystery. I am sorry, Gary, if my post sounded offensive. In fact your reply is quite gentle compared to the abuse I have experienced from fellow Catholics on the matter. Unless all children are allowed to hear the flaws in such consensus science, we will remain in the dark ages of dogmatic theory. The matter must include faith, because, Intelligent Design centres on the observation that a super intelligence could only have created various patterns in life forms and life units. Of course, in this case, I give a personal opinion only, which is the case for all related posts. Still, Gary, I find your stance better than those who sit on the fence. My point to the post. Such witnessed testimony, which includes the Judaeo-Christian God, must be as valid in a higher intelligent beings eye, dealing with divine truth, as any scientific observation. The choice remains ours. However, Gary, no doubt, for my penance, I will allow myself a self bullying head bashing and re read again the hypothesis you have much faith in and support avidly. mw

mw:

The godless/hijacked, beguiling theory of origins, counterfeits a divine law. The Goliath, can be brought down by the stones of faith gathered from scripture, and educating Catholic children in the weaknesses of such theory.

You honestly should try to understand how historic tragedies begin with bully-pulpit threats against others like yours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqRir6a3VHk GaryGaulin

rohn:

So you believe science shows that intelligence is the product of the “Behavior of matter”?

This is the operational definition for intelligent behavior. It's from the Theory of Intelligent Design that you don't have time for:

Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

GaryGaulin

Me_Think # "You are a victim of religious power mongers. You have the choice to stay in Plato’s cave or come out and witness the true splendor of science." The Bible offers answers towards communication with a God, laden with super scientific truth from a super intelligent God, and to converse with Him in the flesh as the God-Man Jesus. The following reflections came through the Good Friday Mass: the Bible gives communicated truthful witness from the Highest, and reliable expert witnesses towards the highest truths of the Faith; equal to any scientific reporting. St John states: “But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. 35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.)” (Jn 19:33-35) St Paul said similar: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Cor 15: 3-8) God spoke “clearly” to Moses (Num 12:3-9); divine law, witnessed in written stone by Moses; God created in six days. The only scripture, God ever wrote, therefore of prime importance to faith, and pleasing to God (Heb 11). If Catholics stand by mainly non-provable pillars of consensus theory, then they should be faithful to such materialistic science, which says it is impossible that a God can be encountered in the Eucharist. The godless/hijacked, beguiling theory of origins, counterfeits a divine law. The Goliath, can be brought down by the stones of faith gathered from scripture, and educating Catholic children in the weaknesses of such theory. Me_Think, try starting from a stable cave! mw

Me_Think @ 75, You’re correct, humans have created hundreds of religions and perhaps thousands of gods. However, Absolute Truth does exist, whether we believe it or not is irrelevant to that existence. I’ll see you at the Great Implosion. Your answer, “we made You, therefore You don’t exist”, I don’t believe will fly. You may want to Re_Think that. Good ‘luck’. GG, Thanks for the info. First semi-intelligent question; So you believe science shows that intelligence is the product of the “Behavior of matter"? rohn

rohn:

GG; Perhaps I would be best to end the discussion here. When I have questions concerning your Theory of Intelligent Design I will try to engage you at that point. Thanks for the information.

I had to decide whether what was most important to spend my free time writing. That ended up being to Cornelius and to you too from here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-does-machine-learning/#comment-601489 That should for now sum things up, as they relate to the Theory of Intelligent Design and the ID movement. Although not like winning a Nobel Prize the model won a superior coding award: https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/PlanetSourceCodeLabScreen1.JPG I have more information coming on how the model works. And this from the computer model documentation: THEORY OF OPERATION – HOW IT WORKS The Intelligence Design Lab-5 is a cognitive model with behavior that is guided by a navigational network system that maps out an internal representation of its external environment (an internal world model) using a 2D array where signal flow (magnitude and direction) vectors point out the shortest path to where they want to go. This is a vital part of our visual imagination. During human development it is common and expected to cause children to stretch out their arms and say “I can fly!” as they run around while visualizing themselves navigating the sky. Physical properties at each place in the external environment are mapped into a network according to whether they are safely navigable, an unnavigable boundary or border at a barrier, or place attracting it (in this case where the food is). An attracting location in the network provides an always signaling (action potential) signal that propagates outward in all directions and around barrier locations that do not signal at all (the signal stops there just as the critter would by bashing into a barrier). In math these directional activity patterns are shown using a vector map. The ID Lab provides this in the onscreen Navigation Network form that can show the signal direction through each place in the network. It is also possible to show the average Concordant and Discordant pairs ratio, which will be around 60% when the optimum amount of detail is being mapped into network. Too much information leads to navigation errors caused by being overwhelmed as in being “boxed in”. Too little information leads to navigation errors caused by not being able to in their mind “see” the invisible barrier that contains them inside the arena or the shock zone to avoid, as when the program first starts up with the critter unaware of all but a cue card revolving around them and the attracting food. It has accurate information but has no map yet to speak of to work from. Its confidence in motor actions (forward/reverse and left/right) depend on the magnitude and direction it is actually traveling matching the magnitude and direction of the signal flow at the corresponding place it is currently at. Where there is more than one pathway the shortest path dominates, will be the first to propagate to that point and be favored. Where there are two or more paths of equal distance it may become indecisive but will soon favor one path over the others. To test its place avoidance behavior a hidden moving shock zone slowly rotates counterclockwise, while the critter chases food in a clockwise direction heading straight towards the hazard. Although the test is demanding the confidence system of this intelligence strives for perfection, as does a human athlete. The relatively high confidence levels shown in the included line chart indicates that the virtual critter is having fun. In the research paper “Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames” (see notes) that the arena and some of the navigational network is based upon it was found that; some live rats preferred to chase after the treats even though they are not hungry enough to need to eat, while others preferred to remain in the shock free center zone. Even a live animal has to first be willing to accept the challenge. For the virtual critter several If-Then statements that compare actual travel magnitude and direction to that of the internal representation is enough to make it want nothing else but to chase the food around its arena. Intentionally getting out of the way of the approaching invisible shock zone requires the ability to (from past experience) predict future environmental events. This was added by alternating between current angular time (by default room angle is from 0 to 15) and the next angular time frame ahead. The places that will soon become a shock hazard periodically become a place to avoid. This sequential on and off signaling causes a (over time) temporal decision to be made. The same works for swarming bees. Scouts that find a possible new place to build a hive are one at a time allowed to dance out the location for other bees to inspect. This way each option is first considered, before making a final decision. Otherwise all the bees would either swarm to the first site found or to different ones (instead of staying together). http://io9.com/5866215/bee-swarms-behave-just-like-neurons-in-the-human-brain The virtual critter cannot (like a swarm of bees) divide itself then go separate ways, therefore appropriate actions are taken simply by repeatedly presenting (in any sequence) what must be considered. Exactly what it will choose to do at any given time is as hard to predict as it is in real animals. The only way to know for sure is read their mind, which (by adding RAM monitoring code) is possible to do to the ID Lab critter. But it's still not at all like the easy predictable behavior of zombie-like “programmed” actions from an algorithm that uses math to make it go in a given direction in response to an approaching hazard instead of simply showing the options to consider then leaving the decision up to it to figure out, on its own. After avoiding being surrounded by the approaching zone it must have the common sense to go around to behind then wait for the food to be in the clear, while knowing where the food is located even when it's surrounded by places to avoid that can (where signal timing is way off) block its signal activity. Where the signals from attract and avoid locations combine: the wanting to go both towards and away from the food results in it becoming nervously anxious, skittish, as are real animals with such a dilemma. The signal timing that was found to work best closely follows Hebbian Theory. Neighboring cells that fire together, wire together a network with activity patterns that recreate the physical properties of what is in the external environment. It can also be conceptualized as a conservation of energy strategy where at each place in the network an incoming charge is transferred to uncharged neighbors on the opposite side, outgoing direction. The signal energy is moved from place to place, not destroyed then regenerated all over again. To establish a benchmark that assumes error free signals from parts of the brain that use dead reckoning to convert what is seen through the eyes into spatial coordinates in its external environment the program simply uses the already calculated X,Y positions that are used to place things in the virtual environment. In the real world our brain oppositely converts visual signals to these spatial X,Y locations, which a virtual environment has to instead start with. Where this dead reckoning system were added to this model and working perfectly that's what you would get for coordinates. Using the exact coordinates that the program already has provides ideal numbers to work from, which in turn gives this critter an excellent sense of where visible things are located around itself even though in this Lab its eyes cannot visually see them. This navigation system demonstrates how simple it is to organize a network that provides navigational intuition like we have. It helps explain why animals (insects are also animals) seem born with a navigational ability that is there from the start. The origin of this behavior in living animals does not have to be a learned instinct that slowly developed over many millions of years of time by blundering animals passing on slightly less blundering behavioral traits to offspring. It's possible for these neural navigational networks to have existed when multicellular animals first developed, which set off the Cambrian Explosion. The origin of these inherent navigational behaviors may best explained by the activity patterns in these relatively simple cellular networks. The origin of our brain may in part be from subcellular networks that work much the same way in unicellular protozoans (single celled animals) such as paramecia, which have eye spots, antennae and other features once thought to only exist in multicellular animals. Testing such a hypothesis using this computer model requires additional theory, which may have a controversial title but going further into biology this way meets all of the requirements of the premise for an already proposed theory. In a case like this regardless of being controversial science requires developing already existing theory. Therefore see the TheoryOfID.pdf in Notes folder, for a testable operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled. It is predicted to this way be possible to demonstrate a never before programmed intelligent causation event, which is still a further research goal and challenge for all to enjoy. GaryGaulin

mw @ 68

No, I believe in creation in six days.

rohn @ 70

Common Sense would actually dictate that He could do it in a nanosecond (if nanoseconds existed at the point of creation). I do believe in a 7 “day” creation. I’m just not settled on the meaning of the word translated in English as “day”.

Well, that would mean the early universe was matter dominant, and the future would be closed universe where the universe will re-collapse and crush everything in it! The truth is, humans created God. There are hundreds of religions with their own God(s) and their own narrative. None of the stories match. You are a victim of religious power mongers. You have the choice to stay in Plato's cave or come out and witness the true splendor of science Edit:Hmm..ok that's seems dramatic :-) Me_Think

GG; Perhaps I would be best to end the discussion here. When I have questions concerning your Theory of Intelligent Design I will try to engage you at that point. Thanks for the information. rohn

GG; No I didn’t. I scanned the first page of the link you supplied. If I’m not mistaken there are 40 pages to the document. I am ill equipped at the moment (no training) and have limited time to examine them as I’m dealing with spousal health issues. And no I don’t ONLY need “criticism” against it to judge it. I have your “side” of the theory you said you were ‘developing’. This implies unresolved issues. I’m not interested in combing through “strawman” attacks to the theory. If you have received CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms and have answers/refutations then it would speed my process of examination. Perhaps some are included in the linked document. If you don’t wish to supply them, then so be it. It will just take longer for me to ask at least semi-intelligent questions. If your fear is that I will attack you with the criticisms you might supply, I assure you that is not my intention. Generating ‘light’ is my intention, not ‘heat’. Our discussion has been civil to this point. I will not be the one to break from that. I trust you won’t either. If you’ve grow tired of our discussion, then let’s end it now and move on. I said it was a bold request. rohn

rohn:

In previous comments I admitted my lack of training in the field(s) which encompass(s) the realm of intelligence. Also, I have not had the time to examine the ID theory you have brought to my attention. If I may be so bold, I am requesting any information regarding constructive criticism of the theory you are developing. Every human endeavor is flawed in some way since our “toolkit” is limited. I have not examined many of the comments in this thread, perhaps there are some that do not involve “burnt strawmen”. I find it helpful to examine ‘light’ in conjunction with ‘darkness’ so to speak.

Are you saying that you have no time to study the Theory of Intelligent Design and only need "criticism" against it to judge from? GaryGaulin

GG @ 62; Why can’t the answer be as simple as that? First, allow me to commend you for even attempting to “operationally define, in a testable way” the concept of “intelligence”. In previous comments I admitted my lack of training in the field(s) which encompass(s) the realm of intelligence. Also, I have not had the time to examine the ID theory you have brought to my attention. If I may be so bold, I am requesting any information regarding constructive criticism of the theory you are developing. Every human endeavor is flawed in some way since our “toolkit” is limited. I have not examined many of the comments in this thread, perhaps there are some that do not involve “burnt strawmen”. I find it helpful to examine ‘light’ in conjunction with ‘darkness’ so to speak. With this preface, my answer to your second question @ 62; I don’t believe it is that simple. As I’ve stated in previous comments I believe there is a reality beyond material reality which is integrated with material reality in such a way as to make it difficult to delineate between the two. At this moment (i.e. in human terms), perhaps the simplest “boundary” may be described as brain (material) vs mind (immaterial). I believe science is limited in its ability to define accurately this “boundary”. Perhaps it is not as clear as the goal line on a football field for example. Sometime between the union of human germ cells and the baby’s first breath of air, I believe a “soul” (zoe) is integrated to the material form (I believe closer to the union than the breath). Perhaps a mind or a “mind-seed” is also integrated. At any rate, it is the immaterial portion (mind/soul) which will endure beyond the return of our material forms to the dust of the earth. You will probably ask for the scientific evidence to back up my assertions. At this moment, I have only non-scientific evidence. It is obvious that material brains exist, though we know very little concerning how and why they work. I have admitted that your training and experience give you the advantage on this. It is my contention that human attempts to “create”, even with the correct material “recipe”, a biotic or even robotic “human” will fail. We cannot hope to “create” a soul or a mind to integrate to the material. There are those who seek immortality through preservation of the material body or the mind through technology. I submit that we become immortal at the moment soul, mind (including intelligence), and material elements are integrated. rohn

Me-Think @ 65; Common Sense would actually dictate that He could do it in a nanosecond (if nanoseconds existed at the point of creation). I do believe in a 7 "day" creation. I'm just not settled on the meaning of the word translated in English as "day". It is the height of human arrogance to think we understand what true perfection in the mind of a Being capable of materializing something as enormous and complex as a universe from literally nothing (not the 'nothing' of Krauss) with a Word. The Christian Scriptures contain a mountain of information such that even our combined finite feeble minds cannot hope to fully understand. But the journey to understanding (and implementation) is awesome! Believing that He exists, with the help of scientific AND non-scientific evidences, is the first required step to salvation. Anyone who believes that the God of the Old Testament delivered the Law to Moses in hopes that human kind could keep them, is missing the point. He delivered them to prove to us we could NOT. Understanding this is the second step. The third involves a Hebrew brutally tortured and murdered for claiming to be The Word. rohn

Gary # 67: "Me too. And instead of a hypothesis you cannot test I gave you a testable scientific theory for how “intelligent cause” works in biology: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/" Steady Gary, I would not go that far. Many can "see" and have experienced the fruits of their faith. mw

Me_Think at # 65. “Do you believe in 7 day creation”? No, I believe in creation in six days. Cheers Jesus, who miraculously created six big jars of water into mature wine. So witnesses tell us. Now, would an expert scientific wine taster be able to tell that the wine was only seconds old if the product was immediately tested? No, he would have only the producer's word for it. It is a bad job when you get crucified for creating gallons of best wine. Sour grapes, of course. Still, six jar day’s? In which each separate days had interflow. That is, one miracle, contained in eternal time and eternal space. Impossible to scientifically believe of course, because we are measuring with a dinky yard stick. Besides, such an unknown intelligent power in essence, can only be understood by believing. That is the whole point of a super intelligence, from which our intelligence was generated. Only life can produces life; only direct intelligence can generate graded life forms of intelligence in perfection. However, the problem, have I simply stuck my head down a black hole to be scoffed at? Well, the consensus theory surrounding the faith of evolutionism, and I say that with respect, as many of the arguments at first are persuasive and plausible, still has a faith problem in the major pillars of common descent from cosmic dust. The cosmos and life systems are distributed and are operated with meticulous ordered laws which regulate every life form and every heavenly body. Do we live in a mature cosmos, unimaginably created in six days, by a super intelligent power, for our immediate benefit, which of a necessity, means miracles affect dating methods. Or, do we live the more seemingly impossible scenario, for some unknown reason, everything came from a perfectly balanced Godless point containing all matter, infinitely as hot as hell, situated in no space, which for no explainable reason exploded, and for no explainable reason expanded, and which cannot be explained by what or when such may stop. While on Earth, dust suddenly rose from the dead, and grew like a Darwin Tree, from which every branch of life appeared by chance, coded itself through brainless intelligence, while our last upgrade was from chance by an unverifiable operative “scientific” selector which first selected us from a monkey in the making, to be a monkey type? And many scoff at super intelligent creation in six days as impossible? Still, some would say, “thanks Jesus for the best six day wine of creation.” Alas, poured down the drain, as if there is no tomorrow. mw

mw:

However, I broadly agree with a hypothesis which claims that intelligence operates down to the smallest brainless living particle and non-living particle.

Me too. And instead of a hypothesis you cannot test I gave you a testable scientific theory for how "intelligent cause" works in biology: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ GaryGaulin

Thanks Gary for your attempts to demolish my reasoning and undermine my faith. Such is life! You say # 61. “But there is no scientific evidence that our Creator is a He, incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai.” However, that depends on what a superior intelligence requires of us? If such intelligence primarily wants us to trust in His word; everything else is in reality, secondary. You say, “Science requires being specific as possible.” That still leaves room for miracles, something you or I cannot address, as we have no understanding of their operations. Yet in your supported hypothesis, considering the Cambrian explosion, (or the remnants of a miraculous drowning, some believe), intelligence has a sudden surge and created the majority of life forms, without ancestors. Surely, that is a belief system. Just because someone tags the word science to origins, such may include counterfeit knowledge unknowingly? You then go on to say: “There is first here the question of how did the Creator speak? Was it metaphorical as in ‘The bad guys got what they deserve'? A loud voice from the sky that people for miles around could hear? From behind a rock? From a semi-transparent plasma type energy that appeared in the form of a human male? Did angels hold him up as in the painting of God creating Adam? Or can this Creator on ‘his’ own fly through the universe without them? Answering all those will help at least narrow down your operational definition for the word ‘Creator.’” My operational definition of the word “Creator” which God gave to Moses, previous to Sinai, and which Jesus said the same, is—“I am”. That is what basically got Him crucified. God at Sinai, amid thunder and lightening, spoke “clearly” to, Moses (Exod 19:16-19), (Num 12:5-10) (at least have a read of an historic event and recorded by a reliable witness). Just because the method of God communicating may be not to our fallen liking: that is, first to one person, who then can choose to believe or not; demonstrates, or conveys to the rest what is important, the minimum of force, full free will: belief in His word alone. That there are counterfeit experiences, only serves to confirm, we are in spiritual warfare: still, a belief, of course. Still, Jesus “flew” into the air witnessed by people willing to die for what they had seen—the impossible. Besides, Jesus “flew”, through the walls or door of a closed room, again witnessed. Proof; the only thing we can prove is the conviction of the reliability of the experience and the word of the witnesses. Now that boils down to simple faith; which is the point of the situation we are in. We can all be “scientific” so called, doubting Thomas’s, that’s easy. All this intelligence, but the answer is mysteriously wrapped in simple faith. How terrible to “man’s” superior intelligence over simians? Still, studying more the hypothesis you support; a novel interpretation of intelligent design, which seems to include an agnostic type of approach in order to cover every possibility, but then; do you not contradict yourself somewhat by your comments in your recent replies. However, first, you defend the following theory of design, http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ From “the theory of intelligent design;” in the preface, you reference the following: “Premise of this theory was proposed by the Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA, USA, http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php” Is that implied consent? Or, do you mean, that what you are advocating is better, as you state: “The result is a more complete model of reality which is not only useful to scientists but also to computer programmers, artists, musicians, clergy, and anyone interested in knowing who and what we are, and where we came from.” Clearly, you have, in the context of Sinai, not given credence or include the God of Sinai, who said humans were generated by super intelligent miracles, and in a day. He must be very “interested”! Science cannot measure God, or God would not be God. Science cannot measure God, or God would not be God. Still, people can find God, by the means He prescribes, starting from historic Sinai. However, I broadly agree with a hypothesis which claims that intelligence operates down to the smallest brainless living particle and non-living particle. It seem that you leave no room for a personal spirit emended in matter by an higher intelligence, which in your case, can only be described as a largely materialist hypothesis of intelligent design, though even in that, you seem to have an escape plan, and sit on an agonistic fence, which is of course your privilege. mw

rohn @ 64

With Common Sense. Is it reasonable to believe that the finite can comprehend, let alone explain the Infinite?

Common Sense says infinitly powerful creator can create the universe in days. He doesn't require 13.8 billion years. Do you believe in 7 day creation ? Me_Think

GG: How did you test that hypothesis? With Common Sense. Is it reasonable to believe that the finite can comprehend, let alone explain the Infinite? If that were possible, the human justice systems, for example, would not be in the utter disarray (to put it mildly) that it is. rohn

GG... Your reliance on scientific proofs falls flat on it's face when confronted with the miracle of the Big Bang (or theory if you choose)....or the creation of life itself....as science has no answer. The cause of the Big Bang is pure speculation...conjecture and faith as science can't describe what caused it. Science fails you here because there is nothing that science can use in it's toolbox. There were no carbon atoms....no radioactive decay... to measure..even time itself did not exist. But here we are today with an accepted scientific theory that the Big Bang happened....Why , and by Who? Well science won't help you there for the reasons discussed above. Intelligent Design picks up where Darwinism fails....it tries to detect design and then attributes it to a natural cause or an intelligent one....it does not purport to assign a cause or try to define why.... Trumper

rohn:

Science, nor any other human tool (mind, brain, words, etc.) will never fully explain even an iota of the attributes a Creator capable of initiating and maintaining the kinds of phenomena we observe scientifically.

How did you test that hypothesis? The concept of "all knowing" and "intelligence" is what the model and theory of ID that I'm developing is able to operationally define, in a testable way. That's where the scientific evidence (for an "intelligent designer" that can easily design humans) leads. Why can't the answer be as simple as that? GaryGaulin

mw:

As for evidence for the Creator, many believe He incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai.

That "evidence" sometimes work in theology. But there is no scientific evidence that our Creator is a He, incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai. Science requires being specific as possible. There is first here the question of how did the Creator speak? Was it metaphorical as in "The bad guys got what they deserve"? A loud voice from the sky that people for miles around could hear? From behind a rock? From a semi-transparent plasma type energy that appeared in the form of a human male? Did angels hold him up as in the painting of God creating Adam? Or can this Creator on "his" own fly through the universe without them? Answering all those will help at least narrow down your operational definition for the word "Creator". mw:

Proof: reliable witness statements!

There are millions of people who will give you a statement that they saw a man levitate on America's Got Talent but that is far from proof that it was divine intervention. Witness statements are often very misleading. The problem only gets worse after a story is retold and retranslated for as long as what ended up in the Bible did. There could have been a Moses and occasional land bridge was theoretically possible at times, and their flight timed to get through just before it starts filling again. That is something open to scientific investigation. And you first need to rule that out before being able to conclude that your best guess is true. GaryGaulin

GG; Okay. You said, “Your belief that we were created by a creator that’s beyond science to explain is what adherents to (a controversial philosophy) Methodological Naturalism believe. You have no scientific evidence at all to back that up with; it just leads to more philosophy and religion.” First, I do not believe “…that we were created by a creator that’s beyond science to explain…” I suppose it depends on your definition of the word ‘explain’. Science, nor any other human tool (mind, brain, words, etc.) will never fully explain even an iota of the attributes a Creator capable of initiating and maintaining the kinds of phenomena we observe scientifically. However, science does attest (evidence) to at least some of those attributes (transcendence, ultra-intelligence, ultra-powerful, etc.). If what you say, “I was talking about methodological naturalism, not our Creator” is true, then you are correct. There “is no scientific evidence at all to back” up the claim that the creator is beyond science to explain (at least in part). Just as a swirling detached leaf attests to the existence of air molecules that collide with it, so to science attests to the existence of a very powerful, very intelligent First Cause. We cannot see the wind, but we can feel it. Likewise I “feel” His “presence” with my soul AND my mind. Although non-scientific, it is still evidence. I do not wish to discuss any deeper the theological or philosophical questions around the term ‘Creator’. The danger is that we would need to “operationally define” every word. I have tried to focus on the realm of science and remain simplistic with respect to the attributes of the First Cause for just that reason. It seems we will continue to disagree as to whether non-scientific evidence aligned with scientific evidence attests to a transcendent, eternal, ultra-intelligent, ultra-powerful First Cause. It is a profound shame that the very creatures that are the focused purpose of that First Cause are willing to reject the non-scientific (as well as scientific) ‘bread crumbs’ He has given to us. The scientific creed to “follow the evidence WHEREVER it may lead” is a noble one. There will be ‘chasms’ on that journey. It is our choice how we will cross over them. We should not make the mistake of dismissing non-scientific evidence out-of-hand. There is more to reality than atoms and space. rohn

Gary # 55. You say: “Genesis does though place that realm on the other side of the solid dome firmament that separates the waters above the earth from the waters below. Not that the dated cosmological model you are indirectly working from will be much help, anymore.” Really! You may have been taking a swipe at Genesis, perhaps somewhat scoffing at a supposed firm dome: the firmament in Genesis? Below is a timely article exploring the matter. Whether you believe or not is not the issue. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/thoughts-raqia-and-possible-explanation-cosmic-microwave-background/ As for evidence for the Creator, many believe He incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai. Proof: reliable witness statements! Or do they not count, or that God is an unreliable witness Himself? If such words of God are not sufficient, nothing is really sufficient when dealing with origin. Nothing except one to our own liking. The debate started to some degree with a link from bornagain77, clearly establishing, mathematically, common descent is impossible. Your theory, to my understanding, philosophises, that irrespective of such mathematics, life forms will eventually intelligently form themselves? Surely that is still a fundamental belief system? mw

rohn:

You say that I have no scientific evidence to back up the claim that a Creator exists, that ”it just leads to more philosophy and religion.”

Carefully reread it. I was talking about methodological naturalism, not our Creator. Whether or not there is evidence for a "Creator" depends on how you operationally define the word. What is your operational definition? GaryGaulin

I didn’t know there was another Theory of Intelligent Design. I appreciate you supplying the link. I understand your “hostility” now. I admitted at the outset that I have little training in any scientific field let alone cognitive science. However, I will endeavor to unpack your theory though it may take some time. If your last comment is a jab at what you perceive to be my ‘religious’ beliefs then I would suggest that you do not know what my beliefs are regarding Genesis nor what “cosmological model” I hold to. All you really know is that I believe in a transcendent eternal first cause. I freely admit that I am a Christian. If you ask 100 people for their definition of Christian, you will get 100 different answers. I would also assert that not all who claim to be Christian are truly followers of the historical Jesus Christ, indeed perhaps the majority are not. That is for someone else, with more intelligence than the whole of humanity combined could muster, to judge. The divisions within Christianity pale in comparison to the chasm that divides true believers in Christ's nature and accomplishments, from non-believers. You say that I have no scientific evidence to back up the claim that a Creator exists, that ”it just leads to more philosophy and religion.” Show me scientific evidence that a transcendent eternal First Cause doesn’t exist. I submit that the mere existence of the universe and its unfathomable complexity and specificity for life on Earth is scientific evidence. If you have a better explanation (scientific or otherwise) let’s hear it. I believe you are correct to say that the scientific evidence leads to “philosophy and religion”, though I’m not exactly sure what you mean by those terms. Apparently, the “Methodist training” you alluded to in a previous comment did not give you confidence in any “religion.” Scientific evidence seems to indicate that the universe had a beginning. I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe the universe wasn’t created (or appeared from nothing), than to believe it was created…based on the evidence scientific and non-scientific. I did not engage you in this discussion to persuade you to alter your beliefs. I seek only two things when I discuss anything with anybody. First, I seek knowledge (truth) unfettered by bias (a tall order I admit). Second, to test the reasons for the beliefs I hold at the present time. You have not given me any reason to change those beliefs. I have learned much through our discussions, for that I thank you. I give you the last word. By it you may show your true character. For what it is worth, may the Transcendent Eternal First Cause bless you. rohn

Gary # 55: “Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design does not benefit from worn out analogies and excuses for not having something testable like that.” And, “You have no scientific evidence at all to back that up with, it just leads to more philosophy and religion.” Why do you make God a worn out excuse? Is God testable? Is Jesus testable? Is any theory on origins testable in this life? Is it because of some difficult passage in the Judaeo-Christian scripture? At the Transfiguration, when Jesus, transfigured into light, He spoke to Moses to whom He gave the law, in terms of the Holy Trinity. Witnesses recorded that supernatural experience. Faith is inbuilt into common descent, as no one has ever recorded or observed one life form change into another: fact. No one has ever seen dust produce any life form: fact. An underlying faith sustains evolutionism: fact. Hence, Gary, with all the best will in the world, your theory must also be seeded with faith; your belief, minus the firmament of course. As for “scientific evidence” there is a cart load of equally valid evidence given by reliable witnesses, and the very written personal testimony of God written in stone, of which, the first two tablets, Moses smashed. I would say they were more reliable in their recordings and more scrupulous, than many a present day well intended Darwinist. You say Gary, what rohn # 54 says, just leads to more religion, whereas, what you say leads to the opposite! mw

rohn:

Since you seem hostile to the Discovery Institute and the Theory of Intelligent Design,

In case you didn't know, the Theory of Intelligent Design that I defend is here: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design does not benefit from worn out analogies and excuses for not having something testable like that. Your belief that we were created by a creator that's beyond science to explain is what adherents to (a controversial philosophy) Methodological Naturalism believe. You have no scientific evidence at all to back that up with, it just leads to more philosophy and religion. Genesis does though place that realm on the other side of the solid dome firmament that separates the waters above the earth from the waters below. Not that the dated cosmological model you are indirectly working from will be much help, anymore. Too many know what is really up there, to make it seem like that one is just another scientist organized hoax. GaryGaulin

GG @ 52 You said, “The only evidence I have is that science actually can answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence. We just don’t know how yet.” We may have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe science can answer the question of who/what the first cause may be. The human mind through the centuries has devised (discovered?) ways to measure and analyze physical phenomena with the senses (& tools). It is a marvelous endeavor. However, I do not believe that the material universe is the complete reality. I don’t want to get into the philosophy of what the word reality means, but I think there is a greater reality which encompasses the material reality. If we limit our search for answers to one area of investigation (science) then our answers will be at best incomplete. At worse we will force evidence to conform to a false assumption (the lack of other possible realities). If we travel the road of scientific discovery (honestly) and “follow the evidence wherever it may lead”, we will surely encounter a chasm at some point. We can choose one of three courses. We can just stop. We can turn around and try to find another road around the chasm (Darwinism, materialism?). Or we can try to find a bridge (non-scientific investigation) which will get us to the other side where we may continue the journey. The Laws of Thermodynamics seem to indicate there will be an end of some sort for the material universe. What will remain and/or be generated at that point? Science cannot answer this question either. As you alluded to in your last comment the road of scientific discovery is peppered with potholes (hoaxes, misinformation etc.) which seek to divert us from honest discovery. I will assert that most people do not know what they believe let alone why they believe it. If we think that our scientific endeavors are not laced with presumptions then we are only fooling ourselves. Since you seem hostile to the Discovery Institute and the Theory of Intelligent Design, I am reluctant to ask your opinion of Demski etal’s theory concerning the detection of information in nature. Perhaps you have posted your opinion in another place. If so, please reference the location. If not, please give a short answer without the technical jargon (if possible). My opinion (for what it’s worth) is that the physical universe consists of not three but four components; time, space, matter/energy, and information. If information can be measured empirically and analyzed against our experience, why wouldn’t this be a useful tool for scientific discovery? Thanks again for engaging this amateur science hack. rohn

Gary at # 51: to me- 'you are describing “blind faith.”' In the context of the Judaeo-Christian faith, the movement is certainly not centred round blind faith. It all started from an encounter of a mysterious kind, repeatedly reported by honest people, we trust, and demonstrated throughout history. A super intelligent being communicated through His word and power. Such reporting, in truth, must have the same validity as any scientific documentation dealing with origins, and the end game. You said previously, Genesis is the first attempt at a scientific understanding. Relative to the believed super intelligent word given at Sinai, it is not; as a super intelligence pointed in stone back to Genesis with containing condensed supernatural key truths. We certainly agree, needed is a better explanation than the present consensus science, which, by the way, without doubt, demonstrates true blind faith in its major axioms. However, relative to what? And as you rightly point out, how do we know which religion is true or contains some truth? Ultimately, perhaps there is another reason for that situation to prevail? Nevertheless, the ID movement, does some sterling work while encompassing or accommodating a wide range of beliefs, with a core principle that intelligent design clearly exists. That is a strength. Of course, because of the very nature of origins, the straw man called consensus science, must be fed with shredded scripture. Otherwise, we can't play Darwinian cricket, and are deemed unworthy to bat. Therefore the ID movement becomes tarred with the same brush by the prevailing Prince of this world, strict material evolutionism. That does not invalidate the major principle of ID. Still, the fact remains, as per Genesis; humans are basically grounded firmly in "dirt," containing minerals, etc. Vegetables and animals all live off "dirt" grown food. We live basically live off them, and by breathing. Minerals are embedded in our skeleton, etc. Nevertheless, many also live off spiritual understandings. A super intelligent source saw fit to ground us in such; that is, our soul/spirit containing a particle of that pure intelligence, marvelously and so fearfully generated in simultaneous complexity in relation to humans. Of course we need to understand as much as possible, but there must be a limit. However, materialistic science dealing with origins sees no limit; in my understanding, but limits the freedom in education to even discuss the major limitations of material and theistic evolutionism. Things have to change. As for genetics, that from “dirt” coded information results haphazardly by unintelligent means, via a mysterious consensus selector, is “scientific” nonsense: not provable, hence a faith based science; a pseudo science. Hell awaits in various forms if you dare utter such “blasphemy” against the new “prophet” Darwin, creator of humans in the image of knuckle draggers. As for the science of time-space, as an eternal intelligence existed, we may believe, you cannot discount the possibility that eternal time exists, and in eternal space. Just because you may want to chop that hypothesis out of existence, such will not lead to the best understanding of origins. What is needed, is true science, one broadminded enough to encompass other possibilities, and allow criticism of the present flawed consensus science. Until this principle can be tackled, the education pit will just get bigger. mw

In trying out a new quote format: rohn:

I’m certain that you probably know my answer to this. First, I understand that science cannot answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence (assuming you believe the universe had a beginning)

The only evidence I have is that science actually can answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence. We just don't know how yet. My Methodist training taught that our Creator always existed, does not need a beginning. How that is possible is not known but that's how it turns out to be when you do. I like to try figuring out that one. Not that it rules out there having been a beginning of the universe. Conservation of matter and Big Bang Theory favors an oscillating 3D wave where there is a singularity at the zero crossing, into the other half of the cycle. rohn:

therefore, we are entering other realms of investigation.

The theory I have describes a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels working as one. And they are related in a Father, Son, Holy Spirit way. Religious imagination is sometimes useful. There is no scientific conflict at all that I know of with that sort of religious thinking being applied to science. It's just that science requires scientific models. Not really having one makes a worded theory for it impossible to write. The Darwinian antiquating model must first be there, or it's only a great example of putting the cart before the horse. Just before the release of the Ben Stein movie Expelled it came to me that I could in time put that situation right, by starting with I already had from the early 90's where the levels of intelligence into the behavior of matter were explained as they are now. But before then I just wanted the Discovery Institute to stop with the religious politics in place of a scientific theory, I knew they did not have. I literally over-night went from trying to make the Theory of Intelligent Design gone to having to for the sake of science make sure that it never does. What a change of scenery for me that was! rohn:

However, I believe there are other avenues of investigation outside of science which provide evidence for a transcendent eternal cause.

You have to start where you can in science, then search on from there. Going outside of science for evidence only takes you further off the path that you need to never stray from when developing a serious model and theory. Making exceptions is a total science stopper. A convenient excuse for not even trying. When real scientific theory comes along the philosophizing works just fine, no sense complicating things with cognitive science and all that. Several million dollars a year rolls into the institute while the guy stuck with the ID science work goes broke. That is not right but that's what happens when you make compromises that lower your standards to allow accepting evidence outside of science as being scientific. GaryGaulin

Of course, neither can I prove or disprove that an intelligence agency created life. Why not; because some things can only be ultimately understood through belief in a super intelligent word.

How would you know which of the many religious beliefs to choose from (if any) is accurate? You are describing "blind faith".

What is the ultimate end of your hypothesis Gary, an Omega type point?

My working hypothesis is still "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." I'm making wonderful progress scientifically understanding how "intelligent cause" works. It is fair to metaphorically call that "a super intelligent word". You are then essentially correct about such a thing existing. But without a scientific model/theory to show how they/it/He/She works you have no way to (in your mind model) visualize a trinity of intelligence levels that are emergent from the same place consciousness comes from, which all together adds up to a very respectable super-intelligent designer producing the said intelligent designs. GaryGaulin

GG @ 46 I hope you won’t mind continuing our discussion a bit further. You said, “If the universe had to be designed by an intelligent cause then the stretch only gets much greater after trying to explain who or what designed the intelligent agent/causer/God.” I’m certain that you probably know my answer to this. First, I understand that science cannot answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence (assuming you believe the universe had a beginning) therefore, we are entering other realms of investigation. If the Law of Causality posits that a cause must be equal to or greater than the effect, then the cause of the existence of the universe must be equal to or greater than the universe. Is it unreasonable then, to believe this transcendent cause (existing outside of time, space, matter/energy) would be ultra-intelligent, ultra-powerful, and eternal? We can only know anything about this transcendent cause if it is revealed to us by the cause. Since we are getting into the realm of metaphysics and this is primarily a science blog I will end by commenting on your, “It is very possible that living things would do much better in a universe that is even more “fine tuned” for life. With this universe being the only one we know there is still no way to know, either way.” Since we do not know all there is to know about anything, I believe that our idea of what a perfectly fine-tuned universe would be like compared with the characteristics that a transcendent cause might ‘think’ is perfect is a bit presumptuous (no offense meant). We do not know all of the parameters let alone their optimal settings or interrelationships as you alluded to in the second sentence. However, I believe there are other avenues of investigation outside of science which provide evidence for a transcendent eternal cause. rohn

Gary #47: "Fault"? I am simply following your reasoning openly posted on uncommon descent, as you followed mine. A question, how much information can a human mind contain and be needed to process all functions of its own genetic and multiple regulatory mechanisms consciously. How much greater capacity needed, to know and regulate the laws of the Universe, for the order clearly visible in nature, if such a mind exists? The point; human science dealing with history is still shrouded in mystery, which must touch upon philosophy and religion. Even the number zero, cannot have evolved in some theoretical big bang. Therefore, it must have eternally existed in principle. Besides, the basis of life has never been established scientifically; infallible by rigorously confirming experimentation; humans can get life forms from dust and atmospherics, every time. Of course, neither can I prove or disprove that an intelligence agency created life. Why not; because some things can only be ultimately understood through belief in a super intelligent word. Though signs of such intelligence must exist if such a super intelligence exists and if a higher intelligence is at work. Why, because we do not need to know everything, that is left to the super intelligence, from which human intelligence was born. Still, what if we all had evolved into knowing everything, with our nature as it is, and without an existing prior super intelligence? Which fittest god-man/woman would prevail? The fittest to do good or evil? Eternal hell, or eternal peace? What is the ultimate end of your hypothesis Gary, an Omega type point? Thank you for your thoughts. mw

rohn: We can only look at the scientific evidence and our common experience in identifying intelligently caused phenomena and infer design by intelligence. If we have a purported artifact, then there is an implied causal relationship from the artist to the art to the artifact. We can therefore investigate the who, what, when, where, why, and how. The more evidence supporting answers to these questions, the stronger our confidence in a conclusion that the object is an artifact. Zachriel

mw:

You certainly hammer home your point, only scientific answers will do, or they have little or no value; so it seems.

It's not my fault that only scientific answers will do in a discussion about (what is supposed to be) a "scientific theory". GaryGaulin

Rohn:

Is it such a stretch then to believe that the universe (almost infinitely more complex than the “heads”) was designed by an intelligent cause, even though we may not know the ‘how’?

If the universe had to be designed by an intelligent cause then the stretch only gets much greater after trying to explain who or what designed the intelligent agent/causer/God. It is very possible that living things would do much better in a universe that is even more "fine tuned" for life. With this universe being the only one we know there is still no way to know, either way. Computer models may in the future be able to answer that, but it's currently not technologically possible. And you're welcome, for the time. I love your challenge! GaryGaulin

Hi Gary # 43. You certainly hammer home your point, only scientific answers will do, or they have little or no value; so it seems. Let’s see; the Judaeo-Scriptures, the Koran, and the teachings of the Buddha, were all built on an experience or experiences as in the former case, beyond human science. And, talking about Easter, when the resurrection of the carpenter God-Man shook the natural cognitive order of perceptions, and opened up another world (heaven). A carpenter; devoid of a PhD, a professorial chair, or an English basic O Level, who said He was "the way, the truth, and the life" ( Jn 14:6): scientifically, how, or on what basis, do we test the value of that qualified assertion, that is, qualified by miracles. Nevertheless, Darwin said in his autobiography, that those who believed in miracles were “ignorant,” to an incredible degree; including believing the Gospels. The Old Testament “manifestly false history:” no “sane” person would believe such religion: ref, pp. 85-96, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=1 Still, Darwin ‘knew’ as an historical fact that we came from monkey types. Yet, who would trust the mind of a higher intelligence, a God who, according to Christian theistic consensus science/belief, builds our minds on “monkey’s” brains! Even Darwin saw the irony of his theory, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-13230.xml As for Darwin’s appeal to design, that is, design in nature actually means no actual design, must rank as the biggest con ever, the biggest powerful delusion humans self inflict on ourselves. Ref, Darwin's "one long argument," http://www.plosin.com/work/OneLongArgument.html mw

I agree with you. I have minimal trainng in science (2 yrs of college) so I'm not an expert. What I'm trying to get to is the FACT that we do not KNOW 100% that the "heads" of Easter Island were made by intelligent causes. We can only look at the scientific evidence and our common experience in identifying intelligently caused phenomena and infer design by intelligence. Is there ANY evidence (scientific or otherwise) that allows us to say that the "heads" MAY have arose by some other means? Is it such a stretch then to believe that the universe (almost infinitely more complex than the "heads") was designed by an intelligent cause, even though we may not know the 'how'? I understand that science only deals with phenomena that can be measured empirically. But knowledge arrives by various other means as well. To eliminate a possible explanation simply because it is not in the realm of science (I'm not saying you specifically are doing this), when the scientific evidence points to a cause outside of science, is not "following the evidence WHEREVER it may lead". It takes a bit of faith to believe that the "heads" were created by a intelligent cause. We do not know HOW they were made (chisel & hammer?) but the consensus is based on scientific (and other) evidence that they were made by an intelligent agent. Thanks for you time and have a great day. rohn

Rohn, both you and I must have good scientific arguments to explain how the said "intelligence" works or else reasonable people cannot take either of us seriously. It is incredibly unscientific to leave the causer (mechanism) of "intelligent cause" to the imagination. If you were taught otherwise then by whom? I normally have no problem at all being taken seriously by scientists. But that is because I have applicable experience in cognitive science and do not leave "intelligent cause" to the imagination. GaryGaulin

GG @ 41 I do not. I was just wondering how scientists (or anyone) can infer the best explaination for the existence of the stone "heads" of Easter Island is intelligent humans, but the existence of super complexity in a living cell (let alone the universe) could arise without intelligence. rohn

Human statue designers have been well documented. An entire army of statues was found buried. They are useful for frightening enemy invaders away and showing off the wealth and power of a ruler. Do you have scientific evidence that aliens or a religious deity created the stone “heads” of Easter Island? GaryGaulin

GG @ 38 What evidence? rohn

GG # 37. "Apparently after men took over religion." That is why today, the Father sends a "powerful delusion" (2 Thess 2:9-11), for we have more or less, basically intellectually crucified Jesus God-Man and let loose Barabbas Charlie Darwin, who is made 'full of grace and favour' by fallen men. It cannot go unnoticed. How would we know if we were or not under such a God sent intellectual flooding, because in free will we want it so, therefore, in justice He is simply reinforcing our free will. Giving us what we want? Christians should teach in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). mw

rohn asks:

GaryGaulin How did the stone “heads” of Easter Island come to be?

Evidence strongly indicates that the "heads" were carved from stone, by humans. Therefore the stone “heads” of Easter Island are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. GaryGaulin

mw:

However, there is a supernatural to natural understanding, that is, Jesus/God, addressed God in the “Lord’s prayer,” as “Our Father.”

In the old testament Genesis 1:26 speaks of God in the plural form, no gender:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

From what I know God was first considered to be a female who gave (virgin) birth to all living things. There may be a hint of the earlier belief system in Genesis 3:20:

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Apparently after men took over religion God was made a He, and the virgin mother of all living things was demoted to only giving virgin birth to Jesus. There is some info in this informative documentary that has more than one part to it but they are all worth watching: The Burning Times Documentary - Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqRir6a3VHk GaryGaulin

Gary # 33; you say: “There is also no scientific way to qualify our creator as a ‘He’ and some woman say He’s really a ‘She' while logically speaking our creator should embody both, so perhaps both are right.” However, there is a supernatural to natural understanding, that is, Jesus/God, addressed God in the “Lord's prayer,” as “Our Father.” As there can only be one God; from Genesis, in the beginning, God created in His own image, male and female, in one day. Now I know this seems impossible to fallen human nature. However, that does not make it impossible. Therefore, God is our Father and Mother, in terms of male and female. Yahweh names Himself to Moses as “I am” (Exod 3:14). When Jesus did the same; calling Himself “I am,”(Jn 8:58); that is, equal to Yahweh; He set the ball rolling for His crucifixion. That, and when He rose Lazarus from the dead. To refresh, you say, “there is also no scientific way to qualify our creator, as ‘He,’” Surely that is overlooking the obvious. Jesus said he was God, and He was scientifically male in His Human Nature. Such a God appears to have also a Created Nature/Uncreated Nature. And if we take this in context of belief in the Holy Trinity, things simple become beyond our understanding. Still, if we find the Adam and Eve scenario difficult, boy, it is super difficult to believe that every life form in the world, before it died, in its life time; through common descent; evolution had evolved a corresponding mate for every life form. Basically, such is a Darwinian miracle, or a good fudge to gloss over an impossibility; the Darwin Credo. mw

GaryGaulin How did the stone "heads" of Easter Island come to be? rohn

Thanks GG # 31 for your comments, however, I still do not understand your reference to V.J.T. You say:- "I believe that the two accounts in Genesis are an early example of human written science." And, "And the issue of which faith makes the most sense usually results in bloody wars, so I’m glad that science does not require that either." The two accounts in Genesis, are better read, in my opinian, as the second is an extension of expansion of the first; just as the first statement in the Bible is followed by an elaboration that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis contains, in condensed form, key truths of the Universe we inhabit, in order to understand powers beyhond our understanding, but nevertheless which interacts with us. Gary, you take Genesis as an attempt at scientific understanding. However, it is at Sinai where the first historic evidence of a super science with miraculous power was demonstrated, pointing back to the key truths of the cosmos in Genesis, by the finger of Yahweh in stone. The Decalogue, sets down round thunder and lightening, upheld in the forming of an historic nation, and miraculously through continuous miracles over the proceeding 40 years; by weekly food on the dot, continual signs of a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. The foundation of the Judaeo-Christian faith was and remains round miracles, not human science, because human science cannot compute a miracle, by any means. As for bloody wars; the "science" of Darwinism led to the ideology of Marx, Lennon, and Hitler, etc., see http://creation.com/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism As for Jesus, he even made whole the ear of a soldier, which Peter had cut off; and God would not let David, build the first Temple personally, as he had been a man of war. It its to the Christian movements everlasting shame, it has not basically practised the teaching of its founder. And that now includes believing that through Him creation came about in six days. Jesus stated, as God in part and God in whole (Jn 8:58), that the Commandments were unbendable (Matt 5:17-18). And Jesus should know, as He gave them at Sinai, as one God; so some believe. Still; science, the builder of the first atomic bomb. And many other destructive implements of war. What gladness such science brings! Of course, there is true beneficial science. Darwinism is not true science, because it incorporates a belief system of Darwin's own; common descent. Then of course, we have the scientific technology that destroys human life forms, while on living life support machines: that is abortion. Bloody wars indeed, world-wide. Of course, epigenetics gives credence to the commandment concerning the sins of the Father's being passed on. mw

mw:

However, invincible science in relation to historic origins? Have we a spare cosmos to test any historic-clad scenarios? The invincible ‘Chief Scientist,’ so to speak; at the time, was the only three in one present, some believe. And we know what He said and wrote.

I believe that the two accounts in Genesis are an early example of human written science. It was close enough for the period of time that they served and still works today for the ID theory I have, but Genesis should not be taken overly literally or as the last word. There is also no scientific way to qualify our creator as a "He" and some woman say He's really a "She" while logically speaking our creator should embody both, so perhaps both are right. In any event religion has a way of complicating matters even worse with there being so many different ways to explain much the same thing. At least in science no gender needs to be assigned to our creator, where as in religion it would only be a long argument where some husbands end up having to cook their own supper for being insulting to women. And the issue of which faith makes the most sense usually results in bloody wars, so I'm glad that science does not require that either. GaryGaulin

I am not too sure what you mean GG #31, and also in relation to V.J.Torley:- 'In this case we only have to be invincible in science, where progress can be measured by how many like V.J.Torley are then fairly able to say “I told you so!”' However, invincible science in relation to historic origins? Have we a spare cosmos to test any historic-clad scenarios? The invincible 'Chief Scientist,' so to speak; at the time, was the only three in one present, some believe. And we know what He said and wrote. Even evolutionists cannot do away with faith in such consensus science. Though they will not admit it by and large. Oh for honest evolutionism, by this I mean, to admit the theory is not fact; that is, in some major aspects, and is certainly not a scientific law, but which nevertheless explains everything scientifically! mw

mw:

As for a scientifically invincible ID theory, then we would have to do away with faith, which in the Judaeo-Christian framework is essential, central, and how an intelligent designer has decided intelligently, that’s how He wants it!

In this case we only have to be invincible in science, where progress can be measured by how many like V.J.Torley are then fairly able to say "I told you so!" GaryGaulin

Origenes:

In what way are scientific models “self-explanatory”? They are products of intelligent design, right?

Regardless of computer models being "products of intelligent design" they model a system that exists in reality, and must match all experimental data. An excellent example of that is the paper I linked to in the comment I just linked to above. It contains one thing after another in regards to what should be seen happening in a computer model, including theta-waves indicative of consciously exploring real or imagined places, as does the computer modeled network where the solution to a spatial problem ripples around as waves. Where waves were not involved the ID Lab model would have something out of place, not fitting evidence. But where waves are absolutely needed in the model too the scientific evidence fits just fine. Models are “self-explanatory” in a way where after you have yourself modeled enough of them for yourself you know what they are useful for, and their limitations. It is also possible to only have a computer model with no written "theory" to in words explain how it works. You then have to figure out the code, but the model to base theory upon still exists. What needs to be said in theory for non-programmers to understand it is “self-explanatory” from the model alone. Although the theory writers would each word things a little differently they are all still trying to describe the same thing. GaryGaulin

Thanks GG # 27 for your thoughts, and “scientifically invincible.” The limits of our knowledge are essentially regulated, we have been given what is good to know, anything else is potentially not good, and would be too much overload. For example, we do not need to know when to breath or when to beat our heart, or regulate complex systems in the wonderfully made human body. Such is also done by the autonomic nervous system, and other regulatory systems directing somehow even the smallest brainless component: all orchestrated able to know where to go. Therefore, how in the world, could the consensus management of theoretical biological evolutions big five, which appears to be, natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and chance, all devoid of a collective brain; decide, which would be an unconscious system, and a conscious one in any life component, life unit, or life system fully coordinated? In fact how is it done intelligently to any human understanding? Of course, we must try and understand things, but there is clearly a limit. As for a scientifically invincible ID theory, then we would have to do away with faith, which in the Judaeo-Christian framework is essential, central, and how an intelligent designer has decided intelligently, that’s how He wants it! Still, perhaps there is no harm trying in this case? The concept of ID does have merits. As for me, my conviction on the matter is invincible! And that is what ultimately matters. It can “walk” over the waters of evolutionism even: though scoffed at in the process. Still, there must be a better, but still limited scientific explanation than Darwin proposed, even with major amendments prevailing: his first, the watering down of what was basically a deity in the guise of an all powerful “good” selector; Darwinian theoretical natural selection, in order to knock the Judaeo-Christian God of His perch (Sinai). That really is the underlying purpose of Darwinian evolution theory. His grandfather (I think it was) had a similar problem; everything evolved from shells! He even painted a coat of arms with it on his carriage. Perhaps the "best" scientific theory must ultimately leave some room for a super scientific essence. mw

Origenes, there is no reason why a "first cause" or "foundation of reality" should be knowable by us. Such a "necessary being" (and there is no reason why it would have to be a "being"), may exist in some sense, but there is no reason why its nature should be accessible to us an an "explanation", much less as "self-explanatory." Aleta

mw:

Your use of logic, in this instant, reminds me of an atheist youngster commenting on the Ham/Nye debate, who said basically, Nye sticks to science but Ham keeps referring to God.

In my case though it's because the only way for the ID movement to antiquate Darwinian theory is to accept that there is a model behind it, which has been useful to many including in manufacturing where the algorithm it reduces down to can be used to design quieter and more efficient consumer appliances. The only honest thing to do is either beat that model with something better to demonstrate how speciation works, or accept that you can't. It's OK to keep working on one, but just plain wrong to make it seem like you already have a scientific model and theory. Scientific progress looks like this: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pigeons-computers-and-picasso/#comment-600806 At least some of us are developing a science changing model. VJT just made it easy for me to relate my work to their thoughts, which are way ID too but where we have a serious model to support them that will survive the test of time we are scientifically invincible. GaryGaulin

Aleta, Gary

Aleta: I replied that I don’t believe such “self-explanatory” explanations can exist, and that is why I think that indeed that it is in principle impossible for us to know the deepest reasons why the universe is as it is.

Either something that is “self-explanatory” exists — a necessary being — as a foundation to reality or we are confronted with the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes. - - - Gary,

GG: Science is already well grounded in something which is self-explanatory, they are called “models”.

In what way are scientific models "self-explanatory"? They are products of intelligent design, right? Origenes

Mung:

How does “intelligent cause” work? Deliberately.

How? GaryGaulin

Dick at #13:

Some scientific theories explain “how”, but a theory doesn’t have to explain how things work or happen in order to be scientific.

If you do not have a "scientific model" then there is nothing to base a "scientific theory" upon. Making it seem otherwise is from your not having a scientific model/theory. Misinformation is being spread around to support your belief that you do not need a scientific model to explain how something works and scientific theory is just a matter of faith. But going along with something like that involves you in a scam that ultimately involves all of the public schools in the world. GaryGaulin

Origenes in #14:

Every scientific explanation pushes the question “how” back one step. This nagging question will only go away if science can be grounded in something which is self-explanatory.

Science is already well grounded in something which is self-explanatory, they are called "models". All models have their limitations but they can none the less be very useful for explaining how something works. GaryGaulin

Origenes, you write,

Why exactly is it in principle impossible for us to know why the universe is as it is? Second, the circumstance that we don’t know why the universe is as it is, doesn’t exempt us from seeking explanations for e.g. the behavior of electrons.

I totally agree with the second sentence: of course we should seek explanations for how the world works, and if we can find out more about the behavior of electrons in terms of other particles or principles or whatever we can invent that helps tie all our knowledge together, we should. But, as I said before, and this is the answer to your first question, there are some fundamental limits to our ability to answer the question of why the universe is such as it is, as opposed to questions as to how does the universe that we experience work. The reach of our knowledge is limited by the reach of our ability to experience it. At this point in time, we have no way of knowing what is "beyond" our universe, nor what is "beneath" our universe in respect to the quantum nature of elementary particles. And even if we proceed further in either one of those directions, there will always be, as you said, a further step back to continue asking the questions. You also said this regress can only be resolved if "science can be grounded in something which is self-explanatory." I replied that I don't believe such "self-explanatory" explanations can exist, and that is why I think that indeed that it is in principle impossible for us to know the deepest reasons why the universe is as it is. We don't have access to the metaphysical, in whatever forms it takes, so we are limited to knowing the world as we experience it. Aleta

Mung # 19. "Why do we see this pattern of life ..." Why did not an intelligent creator stop at making a simian as intelligent as a human; able to speak as a human, and with hands like a human; able to multitask, sit at a computer, then swing in trees? A God who places His spirit in union with a beast, nevertheless, is an act of bestiality, even direct or incrementally. Why would such an intelligent God build law onto/into (use the same building blocks, yes) beasts which are free in the widest sense, but then become split between law and lawlessness? Free not to be subject to the Decalogue, yet subject to divine law. Such is surely a schizophrenic evolutionary theistic God, having a split off complex to what He said and wrote in Judaeo-Christian terms: He created in six days, but really meant He created in no such manner! That is not then intelligent law, unless, the Genesis Sabbath Commandment means what it says, otherwise it is made out as junk law by well intended Judaeo-Christian evolutionists and atheists? mw

Aleta, What is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws?

Aleta: An electron behaves the way it does, period, (…)

Why does an electron behave the way it does?

Aleta: My opinion is that we don’t know, and can’t know, why the universe is as it is. All we can do is explore how it is, not why it is.

Why exactly is it in principle impossible for us to know why the universe is as it is? Second, the circumstance that we don’t know why the universe is as it is, doesn’t exempt us from seeking explanations for e.g. the behavior of electrons. If it does, then, by the same reasoning, the answer to Gary’s question (#7) could be: “intelligence behaves the way it does, period.” Origenes

Why do we see this pattern of life rather than some other pattern of life. It just happened, that's all. Mung

Hi Origenes. You ask,

Why does an electron behave the way it does?

My opinion is that we don't know, and can't know, why the universe is as it is. All we can do is explore how it is, not why it is. Earlier, you wrote,

Every scientific explanation pushes the question “how” back one step. This nagging question will only go away if science can be grounded in something which is self-explanatory.

I very much agree with your first sentence, not just about scientific explanations but about all explanations. No matter how much explanation we can find showing why some things are the result of, or can by explained by, other things, we also reach a place where we don't know why things are as they are at some fundamental level. Why does an electron exhibit quantum probabilistic and relativistic behavior? Even if we find a reasonable explanation for that, it will just push the question back one step. No matter what we learn to further our understanding, we are always going to be left with the question, "Well, why are things like that. However, I disagree with your second sentence. Even if we find something "self-explanatory", and I don't think such things are likely to exist in respect to our knowledge of the physical world, we would still be left with the question of why does such a self-explanatory explanation exist. My opinion is that we will always be left, no matter how many steps of explanation we uncover, with the unexplained, and that we must, at some point, be content with describing the way that things work rather than describing some ultimate reason why they work that way. The reach of our ability to know is limited, and the questions we ask of ultimate "why's" are beyond those limits. I highly approve of Feynman's belief that he would rather live with uncertainty rather than believe things that are not true. I also believe in the saying "The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao." And, of course, Western theology, in at least its more mystical form, counsels one to, at some point, accept what is as given rather than try to penetrate the inaccessible mind of God. So, my opinion is that in life, and not just science, we should balance our continual quest to understand how the world works with a constant background acceptance that it is what it is. Trying to grasp why it ultimately is as it is is like the common metaphor of trying to grasp a handful of water. And furthermore, as the great mystical traditions all counsel, trying to grasp the unknowable is in fact an impediment to important spiritual goals. So, at some deep level, I am content to work to understand how the world works without thinking that I, or humankind in general, will ever fathom the metaphysics behind the world as it presents itself to us. Aleta

Aleta: An electron behaves the way it does, period, (...)

Why does an electron behave the way it does? - - - p.s. "period"?? Origenes

Origenes writes,

What compels physical objects to obey the laws of nature? E.g. what is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws?

These are good questions, and highlight an important issue. "Laws" of nature are descriptions of how nature behaves. Nature behaves in regular ways, and we are able to thus write logically coherent descriptions of that behavior. But the laws follow the behavior, the behavior doesn't follow the laws. An electron doesn't behave the way it does because it is following some metaphysically prior law about how electrons ought to behave. An electron behaves the way it does, period, and then we describe that behavior with a verbal and mathematical description (a law) that comes after our observation of what the electron does. Aleta

GaryGaulin #10 Your use of logic, in this instant, reminds me of an atheist youngster commenting on the Ham/Nye debate, who said basically, Nye sticks to science but Ham keeps referring to God. Your point, how do we know an intelligence is behind the Creation? There is no human (fallen) science that we know of that comes anywhere near such absurdity. Reply, those who believe in certain witnessed miraculous evidence do not understand, no more than you do not understand, there is no intelligence behind evolutionism! As for proof of an intelligent creator, he wrote in stone at Sinai, recorded by a reliable and trustworthy witness, a lot more trustworthy it would appear than the continual biased evolutionists we see continually adjust their theory. We have the testimony of many witnesses of miracles by unknown means, who would rather die than give up the reality of seeing such super scientific outcomes. We err in not knowing the power of a God. We live (a few still believe) in a creation matured in six days. A divine Judaeo-Christian law. Still, disprove or prove that miracles affect cosmic and geological data. As for free will, we did not ask to be created, but we will have to ask to be saved. In atheistic evolutionism there is no true free will. Add to that a theoretical recent upgrade from the mind of a simian, and we may start to believe anything, even see visions of grandeur from our former simianisation, to defeat the Judaeo-Christian God. Darwin certainly did; he said the Old Testament was manifestly false history! Still, he knew against stark fossil evidence, his imagined history of evolution was spot on. I mean, if his history was so outrageously lacking in one aspect, why should we trust his imagined history in another, which even conjured up a whale-bear; dropped by the publisher from the second edition of Origin, much to the distaste of Darwin, because nothing is impossible with his theory! The irreducible complexity, coupled with the interconnecting simultaneously needed life systems and life components of all life forms, are beyond the mind of fallen man to put together in planned, described, testable form; and from a miracle. Life is too complex, but the two last choices of pure free will boil down to utter simplicity, yes or no, but the consequences will last for eternity. mw

Every scientific explanation pushes the question "how" back one step. This nagging question will only go away if science can be grounded in something which is self-explanatory. Origenes

From #10: If you and others cannot explain how the said “intelligent cause” works then the “theory of intelligent design” cannot be a “scientific theory” as is supposed to be the case. Some scientific theories explain "how", but a theory doesn't have to explain how things work or happen in order to be scientific. Neither the standard Big Bang model, nor the multiverse hypothesis, nor Newton's theory of universal gravitation, nor theories of quantum entanglement explain how the phenomena in question are either caused to occur or how they bring about their effects, but they're still scientific theories for all that. Dick

Gary, how does a "physical law" work? What compels physical objects to obey the laws of nature? E.g. what is it that makes the electrons continue to follow the laws? Origenes

GG, you are still inaccurate to the history and facts of scientific theories. And there is such a thing as scientific praxis before mechanistic models are imposed. A proposed mechanism that has not shown capability to actually produce an effect is and should be acknowledged a failed explanation. It is ideological imposition of a priori materialism that seems to be locking out that admission on issues of OOL, OO body plans involving creative leaps of info beyond thresholds reachable by blind chance and mechanical necessity as well as issues of the self-aware, self moved insightful, creative and responsibly free mind. KF kairosfocus

Dick, a "scientific theory" explains how something works or happened. This is the premise (not the theory) for the "theory of intelligent design":

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you and others cannot explain how the said "intelligent cause" works then the "theory of intelligent design" cannot be a "scientific theory" as is supposed to be the case. This leads to a very serious "phony science" issue for the ID movement. GaryGaulin

How does “intelligent cause” work? Deliberately. Mung

#7: I'm not sure what the point of the question is. One doesn't have to know how something works in order to believe that it does work. Nor do we have to know how something works in order for the phenomenon in question to be a suitable subject for scientific investigation. Even if we don't know, for example, how our brains generate the sensations of color or flavor, we nevertheless know that they do. Knowing how and knowing that are different epistemic conditions. Dick

Bornagain77, how does “intelligent cause” (of our species) work? GaryGaulin

A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdf A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - 2012 lecture University of Wyoming J. Budziszewski – above quote taken at the 34:30 minute mark http://veritas.org/talks/professors-journey-out-nihilism-why-i-am-not-atheist/?view=presenters&speaker_id=2231 Agent Causality of Theists vs. Blind Causality of Atheists - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1118356054843993/?type=2&theater bornagain77

How does "intelligent cause" work? Anyone? Cornelius Hunter? GaryGaulin

So how did epigenetics evolve and how did organisms survive without it before it showed up? Mapou

My gosh, evolution works even better than we ever imagined. Hah! Isn't that the truth. And it even evolves additional evolvability! Mung

An excellent link. Thanks bornagain77 mw

Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science - Mathematics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1132659110080354/?type=2&theater bornagain77