Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god Darwin now?

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 2, 2009

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Apparently, the sort of comments made in my article in Touchstone – about the little god Darwin – have been noticed by at least one person.

THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:

How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed … Huh? Maybe the story is not believable?

People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died. And his whole coterie was committed to promoting the view that he lost his faith over her death , and it is still fronted today.

Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film worshipping Darwin – or worshipping anything – and threaten to shoot or otherwise punish them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.

As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolution in general. Nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map. But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across that there are some areas government must not infringe, including freedom of religion and freedom of media. (We have big problems with that just now, but we are getting the message across.)

While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it – potentially – rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery’s republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never have dealt with the awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really matters.

Comments

Nak, the solution is simple, you write them and tell them to take out the word destroyed! Until then I am using the word destroyed just as they have used in in the same exact context as they have used it!!! As in the photon is "DESTROYED" when its information is teleported! If you object to me using the word destroyed because of it WRITE THEM not me! If you continue to object TOUGH potatoes!bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, I disagree, this is wonderful research. There is no typo. It just doesn't say what you wished it would say. Do you understand the difference between the photon and the state of the photon? Have you examined the illustration and counted the objects? This message is brought to you by the number three.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Well Nak , but of course, IBM Research is not even good enough for you! Your dogmatism is pathetic!!! And sickening!!! I suggest you, in all the glory of your unfounded self-deluded genius,,, write IBM Research and inform these brilliant men that the original photon was not destroyed, and that the photon certainly still existed, so that they can make the needed correction to their blatant typographical error on their Research Page,,, I am sure they will stop all the important work they are doing right now when they find that the infamous pest of UD fame, Nak, has caught them in a severe error. How they will ever be able to live down the shame I do not know,,, but if you console them, and pull some strings for them, I am sure, after a long bout of depression, they may be able to pull themselves together and get a job at McDonald's or something. They would forever be in your debt! (Or else they could have a good belly laugh for the day?)bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Errr, no. What is being destroyed is the quantum state of the photon, not the photon itself. In the illustration on the page you linked to, see the part labelled "Disrupted Original"? There are three particles at the bottom of the illustration, and three at the top. Nothing got destroyed.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Nak here is the proof: Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research In 1993 an international group of six scientists, including IBM Fellow Charles H. Bennett, confirmed the intuitions of the majority of science fiction writers by showing that perfect teleportation is indeed possible in principle, but only if the original is destroyed. In subsequent years, other scientists have demonstrated teleportation experimentally in a variety of systems, including single photons, coherent light fields, nuclear spins, and trapped ions. http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ * I. Marcikic et al. Nature 421, 509-513 (2003) (photons, long distance) * M. Riebe et al. Nature 429, 734-737 (2004) (trapped calcium ions) * M.D. Barret et al. Nature 429, 737-739 (2004) (trapped beryllium ions) * R. Ursin et al. Nature 430, 849 (2004) (photons, long distance)bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, I'm not committed to it being destroyed or not destroyed. You've made a grand claim (repeatedly) (and often) without evincing any support for said claim. It came up most recently on this thread when you responded to Seversky's request for cold, hard evidence. You responded with a Youtube video (no doubt peer reviewed) (or at least viewed by some of your peers) and then your usual suspects, quantum teleportation, etc etc etc. But perhaps the YouTube video was the extent of the cold, hard evidence, and what followed was merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Hmmm Nak just how committed are you to the "material" photon not being destroyed? Would you forsake your faith in your bearded Buddha? Or is that to much to ask?bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, Yes, a real missed opportunity to show you had a basis for all your posts, your many many posts, about quantum teleportation. Not even a YouTube vide of a photon being destroyed? I'm shocked, shocked.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Well sorry Nak, I did not know this blog was created to please you and that everybody has to stop whatever else they me be involved in to satisfy your pointless meanderings of self-deceived delusion,,, but do not feel to bad, from my perspective I do not talk to brick walls either since they , as well as you, offer nothing constructive to meaningful conversation! Though they may offer insightful help in the quest for truth. Missed Opportunities There they are smiling as they pass you by You smile back and wave a courteous hi You blink, and they laugh in that peculiar way as they melt into the brick wall of yesterday http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjg1c253dDRkMwbornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, You regularly give references to many things unasked for, but you can't supply one for an idea that is very basic to your whole argument? Just one peer reviewed article showing photons are destroyed during quantum teleportation, is it too much to ask of you? Your reticence is uncharacteristic.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Nak, still enamored with all deceptions Darwin? Do you have a little shrine of Darwin in your room that you bow down to,,,sort of like a little bearded Buddha thing? If I listed the reference what difference would it make to you Nak?, you would just ignore it as you do everything else and move on to some other piece of crap darwinists evidence. As far as I can tell, You have absolutely no interest in being fair and objective with the evidence ,,so why should I even give you the time of day much less references?bornagain77_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Mr BA^77, That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its “infinite” information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Can you cite a reference to a photon being destroyed in a quantum teleportation experiment? Also, from the abstract of the Duwell paper you cite: I will also argue that that information transfer, understood as something more than simple qubit transfer, is not necessary for teleportation to occur. I'm personally sympathetic to "it from bit" thinking, just not your word salad version of it. BTW, did you know Duwell has an unpublished Darwin paper on his site? It is an interesting read. It has this quote from Darwin in 1838: On August 16th Darwin writes: What a magnificent view one can take of the world Astronomical <a unknown> causes, modifed by unknown ones. cause changes in geography & changes of climate superadded to change of climate from physical causes.—these superinduce changes of form in the organic world, as adaptation. & these changing affect each other, & their bodies, by certain laws of harmony keep perfect in these themselves.—instincts alter, reason is formed, & the world peopled <<with Myriads of distinct forms>> from a period short of eternity to the present time, to the future— How far grander than idea from cramped imagination that God created. (D36-7 Barrett, et al. 1987, 342-3) Another interesting quote: No other passage seems to indicate Darwin’s Lyellian commitments more than the following. Lyell, in his Principles, argues that geologists should not speculate on the origin of the earth. Instead, they should focus only on explaining the present state of the earth in reference to observable causes.(Lyell 1969 vol I, 105) Darwin writes: it is useless to speculate <<not only>> about beginning of animal life.: generally, but even about great division, our question is not, how there come to be fishes & quadrupeds, but how there come to be, many genera of fish &c &c at present day.— (C58 Barrett, et al. 1987, 257) Just another example of how we have moved on from the man's positions, that we now do think that OOL and macroevolution are open to scientific investigation.Nakashima_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 You might be interested to know that Professor David Oderberg (an old friend of mine from university days) gave a talk on Aquinas's First Way, at the Joseph Butler Society, Oriel College, Oxford, in May 2009. The talk is 1 hour, followed by 1 hour of Q&A. If you go to his Web page at http://www.reading.ac.uk/AcaDepts/ld/Philos/dso/dso.htm and scroll down to the bottom, you'll find the mp3 and wma links to the talk. Enjoy!vjtorley_{November 6, 2009
November
11
Nov
6
06
2009
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

Further reflection: In conjunction with the mathematical necessity of an "Uncaused Cause" to explain the beginning of the universe, in philosophy it has been shown that,,, "The 'First Mover' is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor - Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html#more I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a "First Mover" accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. This is since the possibility for the universe to be considered a "closed system" of cause and effect is removed with the refutation of the "hidden variable" argument. i.e. There must be a sufficient transcendent cause (God/First Mover) to explain the quantum wave collapse to the "uncertain" 3D effect for "each moment" of the universe. Why, who makes much of a miracle? As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles, Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan, Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,,, Walt Whitman - Miracles Moreover, the transcendent cause must be sufficient to explain the semi-unique effect of 3D centrality witnessed by each individual observer in the universe. Quantum Mechanics - The Limited Role Of The Observer - Michael Strauss - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elg83xUZZBs That the "mind" of a individual observer would play such an integral yet not complete "closed system role", in the instantaneous quantum wave collapse of the universe to "3D centrality", gives us clear evidence that our "mind" is a unique entity. A unique entity with a superior quality of existence when compared to the "uncertain 3D particles" of the "material" universe that won't even collapse until a conscious observer is present. This is clear evidence for the existence of the "higher dimensional soul" of man that supersedes any "material basis" that the soul has been purported to "emerge" from. These following studies lend strong support to this "superior quality" of our minds: In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Eccles "Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder." Heinrich Heine - in the year 1834 Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Of more importance though, the "effect", of universal quantum wave collapse to each "central 3D observer", gives us clear evidence of the extremely special importance that the "cause", of the "Infinite Mind of God", places on each of our own individual minds. Psalm 139:17-18 How precious concerning me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you. Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/bornagain77_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

further reflection: In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery; 4-dimensional (4D) space-time was created in the Big Bang and continues to "expand equally in all places" i.e. The universe is not expanding into anything outside of itself. Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular spot in the universe is to be considered just as "center of the universe" as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered "center of the universe". Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live. There Is No 3D Center To This Universe - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_7Ta5igSEc So in a holistic sense, as facts revealed later in this paper will bear out, it may now be possible for the earth to, once again, be considered "central to the universe". This intriguing possibility, for the earth to once again be considered central, is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), left over from the creation of the universe, forms a sphere around the earth. Earth As The Center Of The Universe - image http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfOXQydzV2OGhz Psalm 102:19 The LORD looked down from His sanctuary on high, from heaven He viewed the earth, On top of this "4D expanding hypersphere geometry", the primary reason the CMBR forms a sphere around the earth is because quantum wave collapse, to its "uncertain" 3D particle/state, is dependent on "observation" in quantum mechanics; i.e. 3D reality does not truly "materialize" until a observer is present (A. Aspect). Moreover, this wave collapse, to its "uncertain" 3D particle/state, is shown by experiment to be instantaneous, and is also shown to be without regard to distance. i.e. It is universal for each observer. As well, CMBR ultimately indicates that information about all points in the universe is actually available to each "central" observer, in any part of the 4D expanding universe, simultaneously. i.e. The CMBR will form a sphere around any observer in the universe, no matter where they are in the universe, because quantum waves will collapse instantaneously, and universally, to each and every individual observer in the 4D expanding universe. This following study solidly refutes the "hidden variable" argument that has been used by materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of this instantaneous "spooky action at a distance" found in quantum mechanics. Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for “spooky” forces, as Einstein termed them—forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist? Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place,,, This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time "unifying" mathematically (Einstein, Penrose). Yet, a unification which Jesus apparently seems to have joined together with His resurrection: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do2KUiPEL5U The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 - William Dembski Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature." St. Augustine Thus, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth, and of humans, brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, the findings of modern science are very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth." Of related interest, this following article is interesting for it draws attention to the fact that humans "just so happen" to be near the logarithmic center of the universe, between Planck's length and the cosmic horizon of the cosmic background radiation (10^-33 cm and 10^28 cm respectively) . The View from the Centre of the Universe by Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack Excerpt: The size of a human being is near the centre of all possible sizes. http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat24.htmbornagain77_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

Seversky: That is evidence, cold, hard, replicable and reliable. Give me evidence like that for your God and I will believe. Well though cold and impersonal,,,and a long step short of what I consider having a "personal relationship" with God,, here is repeatable evidence: Scientific Evidence For God Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQhO906v0VM Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its "infinite" information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, energy, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell). The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "location dominion", of a photon of energy by "a specified truth of infinite information", satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar "specified location" fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows "coordinated universal control" of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea. Thus "infinite transcendent information" provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. This following article powerfully backs up my assertion: Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter? Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes." ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein Further reflections on the "infinite transcendent information" framework: Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum teleportation is concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, "past and future folding into now", framework/dimension of time. This "eternal" inference for light is warranted because light is not "frozen within time" yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this "timeless" travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework/dimension of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the "time not passing", eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus "pure information" is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which It resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). Logic also dictates "a decision" must have been made, by the "transcendent, eternal, infinite information" from the primary timeless (eternal) reality It inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive. The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal framework/dimension does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework/dimension that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:bornagain77_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 58
Well seversky, if you think oblivion is all that awaits you after death you are in for a big surprise. Hopefully and Prayerfully it is not a terrible surprise for you.
We shall see, if you are right. If I am right, we won't.
What gets me is that you deny all the evidence presented to you for God with no hesitation whatsoever without ever even batting an eye, and then act like you are being totally reasonable with all the UD contributors who patiently put up with your self-deceived blindness, as well you never present any evidence that contradicts God actually existing (as if a “material” parameter could exist)
If you want me or anyone else to believe in your God it is up to you to provide the evidence. And evidence is a lot more than the fact that a lot of people believe in God. For a long time a lot of people believed the Sun went around the Earth but that didn't make it true. It is a lot more than the fact that you can't imagine how it all came about if it wasn't created. We can't even imagine everything yet, let alone know it. Our ignorance is evidence only of our ignorance. As for a holy text of highly dubious provenance being evidence, you might as well argue that The Lord of The Rings is evidence for the existence of Sauron.
You only ever voice your dissatisfaction with your self-deluded belief that God is not running the universe up to your high moral standards, and have the audacity to condemn this imaginary God you have built in your mind as if you have actually made any coherent argument whatsoever.
It isn't me pushing the idea of an objective morality deriving its authority from being decreed by some impeccable deity. I'm thinking of Darwin watching helplessly as his beloved daughter died by inches in front of him. I'm imagining him being tortured by the question of what possible divine purpose her death could have served. I'm remembering the family that stood around praying as their daughter died from diabetes on the floor in front of them, not one of them lifting a finger to help her. Where is the evidence of your God in all that? I am also mindful of the fact that, like millions of others, I also have diabetes and that disease is held in check, not by prayer but by the products of medical science. They have been tested and they work. That is evidence, cold, hard, replicable and reliable. Give me evidence like that for your God and I will believe.
Seversky_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

Allen, I ordered Janet Browne's book. I believe my cite will be in there or not. My assessment has to do with how Darwin reacted to Gray's, Lyell's and Wallace's criticism of his ideas. Obviously all three supported parts of his theory but none supported all of it.jerry_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

In #77 jerry wrote:
"You are assuming that what I said is not true"
On the contrary, I am merely asking you to support your assertion with a citation that anyone reading this thread can verify. That's how academic debate is properly carried out: you make arguments, supported by evidence, not just assertions supported by...well, by nothing really.
"As far as any theory of evolution being proven, it has not been even close."
Science is not about "proof", nor is it about "Truth", at least not as these two terms are commonly defined (especially in mathematics). Rather, science is about reasonable explanations for observable phenomena based on empirical observations and/or experiments, which have not yet been falsified by contradictory observations. By this criterion (the only one used in the natural sciences), evolutionary biology is the explanation that fits the largest amount of the available data.
"You know and we know that the issue is macro evolution..."
Not true; ever since the publication of the Origin of Species a century and half ago, the theory of evolution has been about two separate, but related phenomena: 1) the origin of adaptations by means of natural selection, and 2) the divergence and diversification of reproductively isolated populations (i.e. species) from reproductively panmictic ancestral populations. These two subjects correspond directly to the two subdivisions of evolutionary biology today: microevolution, or the origin of the biological characteristics of individuals as the result of differential survival and reproduction, and macroevolution, or the origin of reproductively isolated and diverging groups of organisms.
"...when you had the chance to provide evidence [for macroevolution] you failed to do so."
False: I posted a link to my blog post on macroevolution (here it is: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html ), and I recommended reading several of the current books on the subject (including an anthology of articles on the subject, edited by Elizabeth Vrba and Niles Eldredge: Macroevolution: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency (Essays in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould) (2005) The Paleontological Society/Allen Press, Lawrence, KA, 210 pages). My colleague, mentor, and co-instructor for evolution at Cornell, Will Provine, never said that macroevolution was a "fantasy". What I suspect he said was that the idea that one could write the kind of mathematical equations that form the conceptual basis for microevolution was a "fantasy" with respect to macroevolution. This is because, unlike microevolution, the processes that drive macroevolution cannot be mathematically modeled, any more than virtually any process which includes some form of historical contingency can be mathematically modeled.
"In the last year I have watched a Teaching Company course on Darwin, read Wiker’s book, watched some videos on Darwin put on by Stanford as well as several other things that might contain what I am looking for and at present have no time to go over them again."
Interesting that you should mention The Teaching Company. I have auditioned for them to do a lecture series on the Darwinian Revolutions. I have also just completed a series of videos on the same subject for Cornell's CyberTower program. You can watch them online here: http://cybertower.cornell.edu/lodetails.cfm?id=421 The official launch date for this series is 24 November, the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.Allen_MacNeill_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Allen, I am afraid it is you who have the reading comprehension problem. I was careful with my words and maybe I made a mistake some place but I did not see you pick it up. You brought in a lot of extraneous information. I never questioned Janet Brown or anything she wrote, because I have not read it. I do not know where what I recollect came from but I believe there was more than one instance where Darwin insisted that non natural explications were not possible and they were in response to criticisms and thus would not be in his books. So I don't think offering his books up is meaningful. You said and this is categorical "Go ahead, read through it and when you find corroboration for your assertions, feel free to post them here." You are assuming that what I said is not true and that my recollections are wrong which they could be but suppose my recollections are correct, what will that mean. As far as any theory of evolution being proven, it has not been even close. And you know that as well as any one. You know and we know that the issue is macro evolution and when you had the chance to provide evidence you failed to do so. Your colleague Will Provine admitted that it is based on faith. And to me faith is religious in nature especially when it concerns origins. It is no different than those who have faith that a being created the world and the things in it. In the end the issue here is two fold. Whether Darwin reacted to criticism that his ideas could be supplemented by an intelligent input by categorically rejecting them. and Whether his theory/ideas have been proven or even to be shown reasonable. The second has never been shown and if I come across the evidence for the first, I will make sure I keep the cite this time since the first time around I did not anticipate this discussion. I haven't got the time to look for it so maybe I will write Wilker and Flannery to see if they have any information. I said if I cannot find it then I will retract it and change my assessment. Did you read that? So until I find the information I remember seeing, consider my assessment currently retracted. In the last year I have watched a Teaching Company course on Darwin, read Wiker's book, watched some videos on Darwin put on by Stanford as well as several other things that might contain what I am looking for and at present have no time to go over them again.jerry_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Allen,
It is damaging enough to have a bad theory, but to have it sustained because of its religious implications is indeed beyond the pale.
That's called Darwinism. And I agree with you, it's beyond the pale, just ask Richard Lewontin about his fear of the Divine foot in the door.Clive Hayden_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Re Jerry in #73:
"I base my conclusions on how one acts and not on what one says."
Please list those acts by Darwin (or me, or almost any other evolutionary biologist, for that matter) that indicate that he (and I, and we) are a) lying about our true motivations b) saying we are one thing (i.e. moral, objective, etc.) but, through our acts, demonstrating the opposite.
"Maybe you have the examples and if you do then you should in all honesty present them."
I already have, in comment #70. I also recommend Janet Browne's two volume biography of Darwin, which provides unusually detailed insights into his personal life and beliefs, as well as historical background for his scientific work. Her biography has been widely praised as the most complete and objective biography of Darwin ever published. But, of course, to some of the commentators here, she's just lying to promote her atheist worldview, despite the fact that her biography of Darwin has been meticulously and copiously documented using Darwin's own autobiography, correspondence, and private notebooks (and the fact that Browne herself has never publicly said or written whether or not she is an atheist). Benjamin Wiker, for instance, thinks that Darwin's entire "atheistic/ materialistic" worldview was formed during his attendance at a few meetings of an "freethinkers' club" (Wiker's characterization) while he was a young student at Edinburgh University. Wiker believes that these few hours spent in what amounted to undergraduate bull sessions trumps the half century Darwin spent doing his scientific work, the tens of thousands of letters Darwin wrote to his friends and professional colleagues, and the intimate and candid observations of his life and character, drawn from his friends and family over his lifetime.
It is based on my recollection that there was more than one occasion where he forcefully rejected the possibility of non natural causes when he did not have to. He went out of his way to dismiss the possibility and forcefully argue for only natural causes.
Every word of all six editions of the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man and all of Darwin's other published works (plus his autobiography and much of his correspondence) are available online here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/ and here: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/ Go ahead, read through it and when you find corroboration for your assertions, feel free to post them here.
"I find your defense of Darwin on this interesting. I get the feeling that many are sensitive to the coupling of naturalistic evolution theory and atheism not because they don’t think it is true but only because politically or socially the connection could cause a problem. Hence, your defense here."
Using the links I provided above, please find for me precisely where Darwin "coupled naturalistic evolution theory and atheism" and post it here.
"I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually believed Darwin was an atheist but those who defend him cannot allow such a connection to dominate the discussion especially when his theory is dead as you have proclaimed in the past."
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Both Darwin and I have asserted that he was not an atheist, and you seem to think that you can divine the workings of my own mind. That's demagoguery, bordering perilously close to mendacity. Furthermore, I have nowhere asserted that Darwin's theory was "dead". On the contrary, I have asserted that the "modern evolutionary synthesis" as it existed in the late 1950s was "dead", by which I clearly meant it had been superceded by a much more comprehensive and realistic theory, based on half a century of detailed empirical research and theoretical analysis.
"It is damaging enough to have a bad theory but to have it sustained because of its atheistic implications is [sic] beyond the pale."
The current theory of evolution is supported by hundreds of thousands of scientific journal articles and books, containing the results and interpretation of a century and a half of meticulous empirical research carried out by scientists of all religious persuasions, whose commitment was to science, not to religious (or atheist) dogma. However, nothing like this can be said about ID, for which there are a handful of books (only one of which was peer-reviewed) and no regularly published scientific journals of any kind. So I agree with you, with this slight modification: It is damaging enough to have a bad theory, but to have it sustained because of its religious implications is indeed beyond the pale.Allen_MacNeill_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

"[L]ittle god Darwin"? The hatred some in the IDcreationism camp have in their hearts is almost frightening.derwood_{November 5, 2009
November
11
Nov
5
05
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Allen, I base my conclusions on how one acts and not on what one says. I am sorry but I do not take people at their word when their actions show otherwise. I can point to any number of current politicians as a case in point. I do not have the details at my finger tips and if I am wrong then I will retract my assessment of Darwin. It is based on my recollection that there was more than one occasion where he forcefully rejected the possibility of non natural causes when he did not have to. He went out of his way to dismiss the possibility and forcefully argue for only natural causes. This is my understanding and if I am wrong, then I will retract my assessment. There may be others reading this who are more familiar with all that Darwin did and I will bow to them. Maybe you have the examples and if you do then you should in all honesty present them. I haven't got time to research this but there might be others here with more of the specifics. I find your defense of Darwin on this interesting. I get the feeling that many are sensitive to the coupling of naturalistic evolution theory and atheism not because they don't think it is true but only because politically or socially the connection could cause a problem. Hence, your defense here. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually believed Darwin was an atheist but those who defend him cannot allow such a connection to dominate the discussion especially when his theory is dead as you have proclaimed in the past. It is damaging enough to have a bad theory but to have it sustained because of its atheistic implications is beyond the pale. So best to deny the atheistic implications even when one knows they are at the heart of the discussion.jerry_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

BTW (and contrary to O'Leary's assertions in the lead post for this thread), neither of these quotes from Darwin were taken from his publications. The first was from a private letter to the American botanist (and evolution supporter), Asa Gray (author of Gray's Manual of Botany) and the second was from Darwin's autobiography, which by his own account he wrote only for "amusement" and intended it only for the members of his immediate family (it was published widely only after his death by his son, Francis). Ergo (and directly contrary to O'Leary's assertions), both Darwin's public and private positions on the relationship between his theory of evolution and religion were: 1) that he did not intend that they be considered to be related, and 2) that he did not intend to either "prove" or "disprove" either. Once again, science is not about "proof" or "Truth", it's about formulating explanations for the patterns we observe in nature that have not yet been contradicted by the facts.Allen_MacNeill_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Re jerry in comment #69: Here are two direct quotes from Darwin:
With respect to the theological view of the question [of evolution]; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can. [Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 2814 — Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 22 May (1860)]
In his autobiography written in 1876 Darwin recalled that at the time of writing the Origin of Species the conclusion was strong in his mind that God existed due to
"...the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.
How do you reconcile these statements, made by Darwin himself at two very different times in his life, with your position that he was an atheist? You may, of course, assert that he was lying, but if so, please provide empirical evidence to support your assertion.Allen_MacNeill_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Re Clive in #68: Again, I would prefer to let Darwin's words speak for him:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us." [emphasis added]
From my reading of this (and many other passages from Darwin's published works and correspondence) that Darwin believed that if there was a role for a deity (about the actual existence of whom he remained completely agnostic), it was to establish the "laws" of organic evolution, and that having established those laws, "...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." Personally, I believe that speculation about whence the "laws" of organic evolution have come from is outside the purview of the empirical sciences, and therefore I do not speculate about them when doing science. That's best left for to practitioners of philosophical metaphysics (and theology).Allen_MacNeill_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

Allen, I am sorry but your response does not make sense. Either there is an intelligence and that intelligence had an input or there in no intelligence and it is nonsense. There is a third position and that is the intelligence exists and does not have any input. But that is an absurd position. So by refusing to consider the possibility of an intelligence and not letting its consideration be a possibility, Darwin was making a choice. I have to assume that choice was based on internal beliefs. So logic and the evidence points to Darwin as an atheist and all the rest is posturing. He was just not in a position within his society to outwardly make such a declaration. But if he is consistent he was an atheist who did not want to deal with the implications of such a position. I know many people who go to Church and theoretically profess belief in a religion to actually respond on questioning that they really don't believe in anything and only do it for the kids or to avoid uncomfortable discussions with family and friends. So to answer your point. I tend to believe Darwin. If he considered a creator as a viable potential input to life, he would have taken a completely different tack. So Darwin has spoken and I believe him. He was an atheist.jerry_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill,
Near the end of his life, Darwin thought it impossible to conceive that “this immense and wonderful universe” was “the result of blind chance or necessity.” No, it still seemed that the world had been willed into being.
Are you suggesting that Darwin was an advocate of Intelligent Design?Clive Hayden_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Re jerry's comment #66: I'm not aware of Niles Eldredge's views about Darwin's atheism. I was specifically referring to the views of Benjamin Wiker and many of the commentators on this blog, who have often and vociferously accused Darwin (and, by extension, virtually all evolutionary biologists) of atheism and much worse besides. On the contrary, Darwin refused to call himself an atheist, preferring Thomas Huxley's term "agnostic". In his autobiography and much of later correspondence he was quite clear that he believed that the question of the existence or non-existence of God was one that science (including evolutionary biology) could not address. Should we believe Niles Eldredge, you or Darwin himself? Personally, I prefer to take people at face value and believe what they say (and write) until shown overwhelming objective proof to the contrary. Maybe it's just the Quaker in me; to accept a simple yea or nay, and to assume that people mean what they say. As to Darwin's "intransigence" and "unwillingness" to "let...any sort of design...into his theory", what does that have to do with his atheism or lack thereof? Is it necessarily the case that a scientific theory of evolution must or must not include metaphysical speculation on the presence or absence of design in nature? Every year I assign my students the task finding where in the Origin of Species or Darwin's other writings he either affirms or denies the existence of "design" or "purpose" in nature. So far, none of them have reported on either a negative or positive finding. If you can find such assertion or denial, please post it here, so I can show my students the error of their ways. It seems, therefore, that Darwin did not mention either design in nature or the lack thereof in any of his published writings. Once again, you may wish to speculate that he nevertheless held either positive or negative views on the subject, but to do so in the complete absence of evidence seems to me to be irrational. Finally, as to your assertion that "a true agnostic would consider alternatives such as a creator and what such a creator might do", my response is to simply ask "why"? To be specific, why indulge in metaphysical speculation completely beyond any possibility of empirical verification or falsification if such speculation is neither necessary nor relevant to a scientific explanation? Furthermore, to speculate as to "what...a creator might do" would be to do precisely what stephenB (at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-legacy-of-darwin-and-intelligent-design/#comment-338647) and Tim ( at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-legacy-of-darwin-and-intelligent-design/#comment-338639), along with many other ID supporters at this website say is neither necessary nor warranted: to drag religious speculation into what should be a purely scientific enterprise.Allen_MacNeill_{November 4, 2009
November
11
Nov
4
04
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply