Multiverse skeptic Peter Woit clarifies, he is NOT a creationist

No authority is better than his logic, his assumptions and his claimed facts. So, we need to look at those where there is reason to see tot he groundedness of claims. KF kairosfocus

And once again LP falls victim to a logical fallacy: the appeal to authority. This form of verbal intimidation is accomplished by invoking the testimonials of so-called experts or famous people. Of course, for advice it is only natural to look to people who know more about something than we do. But not all appeals to authority are based on sound reasoning. Barb

LP: Given Uncommon Descent is about serving the Intelligent Design community then I would have though the more interesting point he said was how he described Intelligent Design as nonsense.

Calling ID "nonsense" or downright ad hominem attacks is as interesting as ID critics get. What else is new? We observe that Peter Woit is no exception in not raising substantial criticism and move on. Why would this be a "more interesting point"? What is there to discuss? Box

Darwin proposed that natural selection is a designer mimic. To date there isn't any evidence to support that claim. The Royal Society is full of itself. Joe

Lincoln, Isn't it just a tad strange that no oen can reference this alleged theory of evolution? Not even YOU can post a link to it. That tells me all I need to know. BTW, it isn't just me saying that there isn't any theory of evolution. Joe

The Phipps Meister:

This is not a question of belief in god or not but a question of understanding the science that’s on the table. You’re going to have to try a lot harder than your one line wishful thinking that’s devoid of nourishment.

The science of evolution (if you can call it that) has been falsified so many times, the only reason that it is still considered a science is that many important and famous people would lose face and many careers would come to an end if they acknowledged it. The truth is that 'scientific consensus' is synonymous with 'political consensus.' And scientific consensus is routinely proven to be dead wrong. Back in the last century there was a scientific consensus that equated intelligence with symbol manipulation. Symbolic AI was promoted by some of the greatest minds of 20th century science. It ran supreme for half a century and gobbled up billions of dollars until it was unceremoniously forced out by the weight of the evidence against it: it was a complete failure. The latest AI consensus craze is that the brain is, fundamentally, a probability thinker. Statistical learning is all the rage. Billions and billions are being spent on it by both government and industry. It, too, will go the way of GOFAI (good old fashioned AI) and the phlogiston. Wait for it. :-D Mapou

LP

Given Uncommon Descent is about serving the Intelligent Design community then I would have though the more interesting point he said was how he described Intelligent Design as nonsense.

Obviously, you thought wrong. It just wouldn't follow when people are more complex than one point of view, where more than one of those points of view may overlap with the various topics at UD.

Why should the point about creationism even be relevant if ID is a scientific endeavour ?

If anything, it illustrates that evolutionists are the one's consistently making ID into creationism. Also, that evolutionists are so overly sensitive and anti-inquiry on their theories, that they allude to anyone as an enemy... and they feel calling or insinuating that a person is a creationist is enough to straighten them up. lol JGuy

LP

Does UD also believe Woit when he says, “More specifically, everything I’ve seen about Intelligent Design indicates to me it is nonsense, and I’ve done my best to ignore those who promote such nonsense, whether they link to my blog or not. ” lol

Why the silly rhetorical question? JGuy

Well then Joe what exactly does just about every science academy in the world thinking of when they say "evolution" ? http://ncse.com/media/voices/science For example when the Royal Society, http://ncse.com/media/voices/royal-society says "...theory of evolution.." in their statement,

One of the most important advances in our knowledge has been the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. Evolution is rightly taught as an essential part of biology and science courses in schools, colleges and universities across the world.

Lets see, you, some anonymous person somewhere on the Internet thinks that there isn't "any scientific theory of evolution" and yet just about everyone else says there is. Even groups which should be opposites on the spectrum of belief in god, such as the Catholic and Anglican Churches verses the secular humanist groups all accept the science. This is not a question of belief in god or not but a question of understanding the science that's on the table. You're going to have to try a lot harder than your one line wishful thinking that's devoid of nourishment. Lincoln Phipps

Lincoln Phipps:

As Jerry wants to be loose about what a creationist is then the majority of Christians (which are creationists in a sense) in the Western world accept the scientific theory of evolution and not ID.

That is impossible as there isn't any scientific theory of evolution. You lose again, Lincoln Joe

Of related note: Intelligent Design does not suffer from such lack of mathematical rigor:

Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications http://evoinfo.org/publications/

Moreover, Intelligent Design can easily be falsified by empirical evidence (i.e. testability):

“Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.” - Dr Behe in 1997 Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

Moreover, ID has positive evidence for its claim that Intelligence, and only Intelligence, can generate functional information/complexity, whereas Darwinism has no evidence whatsoever that it can produce non-tivial functional information/complexity:

Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator – Fazale Rana Excerpt of Review: ‘Another interesting section of Creating Life in the Lab is one on artificial enzymes. Biological enzymes catalyze chemical reactions, often increasing the spontaneous reaction rate by a billion times or more. Scientists have set out to produce artificial enzymes that catalyze chemical reactions not used in biological organisms. Comparing the structure of biological enzymes, scientists used super-computers to calculate the sequences of amino acids in their enzymes that might catalyze the reaction they were interested in. After testing dozens of candidates,, the best ones were chosen and subjected to “in vitro evolution,” which increased the reaction rate up to 200-fold. Despite all this “intelligent design,” the artificial enzymes were 10,000 to 1,000,000,000 times less efficient than their biological counterparts. Dr. Rana asks the question, “is it reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes routinely accomplished this task?” per Amazon Description

Dr. Fuz Rana, at the 41:30 minute mark of the following video, speaks on the tremendous effort that went into building the preceding protein:

Science – Fuz Rana – Unbelievable? Conference 2013 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u34VJ8J5_c&list=PLS5E_VeVNzAstcmbIlygiEFir3tQtlWxx&index=8 The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 Excerpt of conclusion pg. 42: "To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662469/ Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) - D. Abel 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind

Verse and Music;

John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. Brooke Fraser - Hillsong: “Lord Of Lords” Worship and Praise Song (HQ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB4Tc5zJMUc

bornagain77

Sad that Professor Woit is willing to, very rightly, demand testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory of science that purports to explain how the universe came to be, but that he is not willing to demand that same testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory that purports to explain how he himself came to be:

Book Review: 'Our Mathematical Universe' by Max Tegmark Is our universe only one of many? If so, how real are the others? - Peter Woit Jan. 17, 2014 - Wall Street Journal Excerpt: There's now a long history of intertwined and experimentally tested discoveries about physics and mathematics. This unity between mathematics and physics is a source of wonder for those who study the two subjects, as well as an eternal conundrum for philosophers.,,, ,,, (Tegmark) Interpreting the meaning of "exists" in this way—to include all possible worlds—is a philosophical position known as "modal realism." The innovation here is the claim that this carries a new insight into physics. The problem with such a conception of the ultimate nature of reality is not that it's wrong but that it's empty, far more radically untestable than even the already problematic proposals of M-theory. Mr. Tegmark proposes abandoning the historically proven path of pursuing a single exceptionally deep and very special mathematical structure at the core of both math and physics in favor of the hypothesis that, at the deepest level, "anything goes." Mr. Tegmark's proposal takes him deep in the realm of speculation, and few of his fellow scientists are likely to want to follow him. There's a danger, though, that his argument will convince some that "anything goes" is all there is to ultimate reality, discouraging their search for a better and more elegant version of our current best theories. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579310720208417980

As to how the "anything goes" (lack of testability) problem for the multiverse is also true for Darwinism:

Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. - Evolution explains everything. - William J Murray

As to how Darwinism lacks any mathematical rigor:

“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. The messiness of biology has made it relatively hard to discern the mathematical fundamentals of evolution. Perhaps the laws of biology are deductive consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry. Perhaps natural selection is not a statistical consequence of physics, but a new and fundamental physical law. Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 "On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ “However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.” – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: (Gregory) Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

Well, perhaps that whole mathematics thing may get worked out in the future for Darwinism, but what about testability? Does 'random mutation', one of the two primary pillars of evolutionary thought, hold up to testing?

Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – Jan. 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.,,, Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.,,, ,,,the lack of direct evidence for actual random mutations has now reached a stage where the idea needs to be retired. There are several related reasons why this unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists,,, http://www.edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

Well so much for Random mutations/variations providing convincing support for Darwinism! How about Natural Selection? Can Darwinists demonstrate that the second pillar of Darwinian thought, Natural Selection, is true?

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79

WOW, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is not even on the right playing field to do the 'selecting' in the first place! But hey we IDiots are fair, let's see if Natural Selection were to be on the right playing field, dimensionally speaking, if it could be true then,,

The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm

This devastating ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection is pointed out by Dr. John Sanford at the 8:14 minute mark of this following video,,,

Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933

All of which begs the question, if showing that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis in which to falsify it, and also showing that both of the two primary pillars of Darwinian thought (both Natural Selection and Random Mutations) are false, exactly what scientific finding could possibly falsify Darwinism? bornagain77

Sad that Professor Woit is willing to, very rightly, demand testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory of science that purports to explain how the universe came to be, but that he is not willing to demand that same testability, and mathematical rigor, of any theory that purports to explain how he himself came to be:

Book Review: 'Our Mathematical Universe' by Max Tegmark Is our universe only one of many? If so, how real are the others? - Peter Woit Jan. 17, 2014 - Wall Street Journal Excerpt: There's now a long history of intertwined and experimentally tested discoveries about physics and mathematics. This unity between mathematics and physics is a source of wonder for those who study the two subjects, as well as an eternal conundrum for philosophers.,,, ,,, (Tegmark) Interpreting the meaning of "exists" in this way—to include all possible worlds—is a philosophical position known as "modal realism." The innovation here is the claim that this carries a new insight into physics. The problem with such a conception of the ultimate nature of reality is not that it's wrong but that it's empty, far more radically untestable than even the already problematic proposals of M-theory. Mr. Tegmark proposes abandoning the historically proven path of pursuing a single exceptionally deep and very special mathematical structure at the core of both math and physics in favor of the hypothesis that, at the deepest level, "anything goes." Mr. Tegmark's proposal takes him deep in the realm of speculation, and few of his fellow scientists are likely to want to follow him. There's a danger, though, that his argument will convince some that "anything goes" is all there is to ultimate reality, discouraging their search for a better and more elegant version of our current best theories. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579310720208417980

As to how the "anything goes" (lack of testability) problem for the multiverse is also true for Darwinism:

Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! - Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69) Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything? Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution. - Evolution explains everything. - William J Murray

As to how Darwinism lacks any mathematical rigor:

“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014 Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on. The messiness of biology has made it relatively hard to discern the mathematical fundamentals of evolution. Perhaps the laws of biology are deductive consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry. Perhaps natural selection is not a statistical consequence of physics, but a new and fundamental physical law. Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology. Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation. http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468 "On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. … http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ “However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.” – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years. Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: (Gregory) Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013 Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated? https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/macroevolution-microevolution-and-chemistry-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

Well, perhaps that whole mathematics thing may get worked out in the future for Darwinism, but what about testability? Does 'random mutation', one of the two primary pillars of evolutionary thought, hold up to testing?

Fully Random Mutations – Kevin Kelly – Jan. 2014 Excerpt: What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.,,, Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.,,, ,,,the lack of direct evidence for actual random mutations has now reached a stage where the idea needs to be retired. There are several related reasons why this unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists,,, http://www.edge.org/responses/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf

Well so much for Random mutations/variations providing convincing support for Darwinism! How about Natural Selection? Can Darwinists demonstrate that the second pillar of Darwinian thought, Natural Selection, is true?

“Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79 https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/16037/

WOW, dimensionally speaking, Natural Selection is not even on the right playing field to do the 'selecting' in the first place! But hey we IDiots are fair, let's see if Natural Selection were to be on the right playing field, dimensionally speaking, if it could be true then,,

The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm

This devastating ‘princess and the pea’ problem for natural selection is pointed out by Dr. John Sanford at the 8:14 minute mark of this following video,,,

Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video http://vimeo.com/35088933

All of which begs the question, if showing that Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis in which to falsify it, and also showing that both of the two primary pillars of Darwinian thought (both Natural Selection and Random Mutations) are false, exactly what scientific finding could possibly falsify Darwinism? bornagain77

We live in nonsensical matrix of intentional misrepresentations about everything in our World and the Universe in which we reside. 10 Commandments of science: 1)Thou shalt not challenge the orthodoxy , those that do shall be as heretics 2)Thou shalt not publish heretical works or thy career shall be as dust 3)Thou shalt not engage in discourse with the heretic , lest Ye be tainted with the mark of heresy thyself 4)Thou shalt believe with Thine whole heart the theory only and cleave not unto empirical evidence 5) Thou shalt not admit the existence of refuting evidence lest thou be smitten with a curse 6) Thou Shalt not be permitted to Think lest thou be visited by all manner of afflictions 7) Thou shalt believe in the consensus no matter the absurdity and never question 8) Honour the powers that be that thy days, and careers, may be long upon the land 9) Thou shalt not covet heretical / alternative theories even if they appear to make more sense 10) Thou shalt have no other theory before me humbled

Given Uncommon Descent is about serving the Intelligent Design community then I would have though the more interesting point he said was how he described Intelligent Design as nonsense. Why should the point about creationism even be relevant if ID is a scientific endeavour ? As Jerry wants to be loose about what a creationist is then the majority of Christians (which are creationists in a sense) in the Western world accept the scientific theory of evolution and not ID. Lincoln Phipps

If someone believes in a god and that this god created our universe, does that make someone a creationist? If it does, then most of the people on the planet are creationists and so have most of the scientists in history been creationists. jerry

Does UD also believe Woit when he says,

Well, apparently the Darwin Lobby doesn't believe him. Ironically, you've just proved the point O'Leary was making: shut up or you're a creationist. cantor

Most likely he believes that. So? Will such a declaration get him left alone to pursue skepticism about crackpot cosmology safely? Or is crackpot cosmology the Darwinism of the cosmos? News

Does UD also believe Woit when he says, "More specifically, everything I’ve seen about Intelligent Design indicates to me it is nonsense, and I’ve done my best to ignore those who promote such nonsense, whether they link to my blog or not. " lol Lincoln Phipps