Darwinism Naturalism

Richard Lewontin (1929 – 2021)

Spread the love

Evolutionary biologist, perhaps best known for:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons” at New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997), a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Random House)

We shall see.

123 Replies to “Richard Lewontin (1929 – 2021)

  1. 1
    Ralph Dave Westfall says:

    I can’t prove whether there is an afterlife or not. However I’m conducting my life as if there will be one. If I’m wrong, I’ll never know it. I hate finding out I was wrong, especially if it’s too late to do anything about it.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,”

    Those were strong and valid words in 1997. Now that science has become pure and total genocide, making war on a dozen fronts to obliterate all life, those words sound understated.

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    “Perhaps best known for”? Certainly not that’s one of his more obscure pieces of writing. He’s better known for his actual science (e.g. the Spandrels paper, and his work in population genetics).

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Travel well dear sir in the beyond.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    At least he was honest. We won’t get that from the likes of the anti-ID whiners posting here.

  6. 6
    MikeW says:

    There is a Foot in the door right now. It’s complex specified information in the form of biological information and universal fine-tuning information. The door is heavy, though.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H objects that Lewontin’s fairly well known quote is not what Lewontin is best known for and that what he is best known for is “his actual science (e.g. the Spandrels paper, and his work in population genetics).”

    Perhaps in the academic ivory tower that Bob O’H resides in that is what Lewontin is best known for. Yet in popular culture, especially on websites debating Intelligent Design and evolution, (such as the one that Bob is commenting on right now), Lewontin is almost exclusively known for his rather candid quote about atheists dogmatically adhering to naturalistic explanations in the face of any and all contrary evidence.

    Moreover, I hold that Lewontin’s ‘actual science’ in population genetics and spandrels underscores Lewontin’s rather candid quote about atheists dogmatically adhering to naturalistic explanations in the face of any and all contrary evidence.

    When we look up Lewontin on wikipedia, here are a few excerpts that we find, as to his ‘actual science’

    Richard Lewontin – (March 29, 1929 – July 4, 2021)
    Excerpts: Lewontin opposed genetic determinism.
    Work in population genetics,,,
    In 1966, he and J. L. Hubby published a paper that revolutionized population genetics,,,
    Lewontin and Hubby’s paper also discussed the possible explanation of the high levels of variability by either balancing selection or neutral mutation. Although they did not commit themselves to advocating neutrality, this was the first clear statement of the neutral theory for levels of variability within species.,,,
    Critique of mainstream evolutionary biology,,,
    Lewontin and Gould introduced the term spandrel to evolutionary biology, inspired by the architectural term “spandrel”, in an influential 1979 paper, “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” “Spandrels” were described as features of an organism that exist as a necessary consequence of other (perhaps adaptive) features, but do not directly improve fitness (and thus are not necessarily adaptive).[16] The relative frequency of spandrels versus adaptations continues to stir controversy in evolutionary biology.,,,
    Lewontin has long been a critic of traditional neo-Darwinian approaches to adaptation.,,,
    Lewontin has said that his more general, technical criticism of adaptationism grew out of his recognition that the fallacies of sociobiology reflect fundamentally flawed assumptions of adaptiveness of all traits in much of the modern evolutionary synthesis.,,,
    Lewontin accused neo-Darwinists of telling Just-So Stories when they try to show how natural selection explains such novelties as long-necked giraffes.,,,
    As well,
    Lewontin has at times identified himself as Marxist, ,,,
    ,,, He was an atheist.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

    So we find that Lewontin’s ‘actual science’ in population genetics and spandrels, in fact, undermined the modern evolutionary synthesis and/or Neo-Darwinism. And even, via his neutral theory, eventually undermined natural selection as being a major player in evolution.

    And yet, even though Lewontin’s ‘actual science’ did much to undermine neo-Darwinian evolution, (the modern synthesis) as a whole, Lewontin himself, (and contrary to common sense), clung to naturalistic evolutionary explanations rather than ever rejecting his atheistic naturalism..

    Which is to say, his ‘actual science’ pointed away from naturalistic explanations, but his a-priori adherence to atheistic naturalism prevented him from ever following the ‘actual science’ to where it was actually leading.

    Moreover, when we click on the link explaining Lewontin’s rejection of genetic determinism, we find,

    Playing God
    Excerpt: What would Lewontin put in the place of biological determinism? Free will? No. He advocates for two-factor determinism, genes plus environment.
    “We must insist that a full understanding of the human condition demands an integration of the biological and the social in which neither is given primacy or ontological priority over the other.”
    He is not replacing genetic determinism with social determinism, just adding the latter to the former. He combines the two. What he wants to avoid is a social philosophy that says: if human nature is fixed by our genes, then we cannot change society. Instead he rallies us for social change. He advocates social reform. And he wants a science that will support social advance. “Natural’ is not fixed. Nature can be changed according to nature”3
    https://books.google.com/books?id=OwtIAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT48#v=onepage&q&f=false

    HUH??? “Nature can be changed according to nature”???

    So Lewontin, a professor at Harvard no less, in his rejection of free will, was apparently reduced to babbling incoherent, and self-refuting, nonsense about nature changing nature.

    It is a crying shame that a professor at Harvard would be reduced to uttering such self-refuting nonsense simply because he refused to ever give up his atheistic naturalism.

    So again, I hold that Lewontin’s ‘actual science’ underscores the quote that Richard Lewontin is most famous for making, and his ‘actual science’ certainly does not detract away one iota from his ‘infamous’ quote about atheists dogmatically clinging to naturalistic explanations no matter what the evidence says to the contrary..

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
    Richard Lewontin

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 7 – if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn’t even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?

  9. 9
    Marfin says:

    Bob O H- Sorry Bob I never realised that you have to be well know for something, for it to be true.

  10. 10
    Bob O'H says:

    Sorry, Marfin, can you explain that. I have no idea what you’re referring to.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H asks, “if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn’t even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?”

    And you really have no clue as to exactly why wikipedia would fail to mention that? 🙂

    I don’t know Bob, do you think it might have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that wikipedia is heavily biased against Intelligent Design?

    For a more fair metric as to how far Lewontin’s quote has penetrated popular culture, I suggest you take the first line of the quote, google it, and see how many results you get back. I got 2,910,000 results back.

    For comparison, I only got 286,000 results back when I googled “Lewontin population genetics”

  12. 12
    Bob O'H says:

    I don’t know Bob, do you think it might have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that wikipedia is heavily biased against Intelligent Design?

    [citation needed]

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    [citation needed]

    Wikipedia’s Tyranny of the Unemployed – David Klinghoffer – June 24, 2012
    ?Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia’s articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia’s volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight.?You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again.
    ,,, on Wikipedia, “fact” is established by the party with the free time that’s required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....61281.html

    Wikipedia Erases Paleontologist Günter Bechly – David Klinghoffer – October 10, 2017
    Excerpt: Günter Bechly is a distinguished paleontologist, specializing in fossil dragonflies, exquisitely preserved in amber for tens of millions of years. After revealing his support for the theory of intelligent design, he was pushed out as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany. He subsequently joined Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture as a Senior Fellow. Now we learn that our colleague has suffered another act of censorship: he has been erased from Wikipedia, ostensibly for not being “notable” enough.,,,
    ,,, It’s a mad world, a funhouse world, where the notability of a paleontologist of Günter Bechly’s stature is uncontested one day but, following his admission of finding ID persuasive, suddenly and furiously contested, to be ruled upon by a 23-year-old “boy” and 500-year-old wizard called “Jo-Jo.” Such is the alternative reality of Wikipedia.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wikipedia-erases-paleontologist-gunter-bechly/

    Wikipedia: where truth dies online – April 2014
    Excerpt: Wikipedia has been a massive success but has always had immense flaws, the greatest one being that nothing it publishes can be trusted. This, you might think, is a pretty big flaw. There are over 21 million editors with varying degrees of competence and honesty. Rogue editors abound and do not restrict themselves to supposedly controversial topics,,,
    Sock puppets are a big problem for Wikipedia because so many of its editors are anonymous. This makes it almost impossible to verify bona fide users. Wikipedia literally has no idea who many of its editors are. ,,,
    One columnist for The Times has likened Wikipedia’s reliance on consensus ahead of accuracy to an interminable political meeting with the end result dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist writing for an online publication, Edge, described Wikipedia as a ‘hive mind’ that is ‘for the most part stupid and boring’.
    http://www.spiked-online.com/n.....2KB0Vc9iSq

    Larry Sanger, Co-founder of Wikipedia, Agrees That it Does not Follow its Own Neutrality Policy. – December 1, 2016
    Excerpt: Mr. Sanger posted an article today about media bias in which he alluded to the neutrality policy he drafted.
    I replied (see the combox of the article):“Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.” I’ve been reading Wikipedia articles for years, and from the evidence I would not have thought such a thing exists, or, if it does, the name is somewhat misleading, because the policy would read something like: “On all matters cultural and political, Wikipedia will endeavor to crush conservative viewpoints. Neutrality will not be tolerated.” Just read the post on, for example, intelligent design theory. It is written by the theory’s antagonists, and all efforts to correct the post to reflect the real theory, as opposed to the straw man caricature presented by its opponents, are ruthlessly suppressed.”
    In a response Mr. Sanger stated:
    “For the record, I agree with this. Wikipedia doesn’t live up to its policy and in fact deliberately misinterprets it on some issues. Although I founded Wikipedia, I’m also long gone from the organization and am now probably its biggest critic, so…”
    There you go folks. We ain’t making it up. The co-founder of Wiki agrees with us.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ty-policy/

    Wikipedia itself admits that it is not a reliable source

    Wikipedia: Academic use
    Excerpt: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything, and as a quick “ready reference”, to get a sense of a concept or idea.
    However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.[1][2][3]
    Many[4] colleges and universities (especially in some high schools and private schools) have a policy that prohibits students from using Wikipedia as their source for doing research papers, essays, or anything equivalent. This is because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any moment,,,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....ademic_use

    Also of related interest:

    Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
    Scott Minnich
    Richard Sternberg
    Günter Bechly
    Eric Hedin
    Don McDonald
    David Coppedge
    Caroline Crocker
    Bryan Leonard
    Martin Gaskell
    Dean Kenyon
    Roger DeHart
    Granville Sewell
    https://freescience.today/stories/
    Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn’t even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?

    1- No materialist would ever edit that in.
    2- Not one materialist would allow it to stay.

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – neither of the posts about Wikipedia being anti-ID would be NPOV, would they? They show that some people think that Wikipedia is anti-ID, but not that it actually is.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Wow. The overwhelming evidence says that wikipedia is anti-ID, Bob. Evidence, Bob. That is what has you so confused.

  17. 17
    jerry says:

    An extremely long article by one of the founders of Wikipedia critical of it’s objectivity appeared yesterday.

    https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/

    ID or evolution will not be mentioned in such a piece. It’s too far down the list of topics that anyone cares about but maybe someone should point out the falsehoods in Wikipedia about ID.

    From Wikipedia and obviously false

    Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”. Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science

    I’m sure it would not be hard to show hundreds of falsehoods by Wikipedia about ID or evolution. So it’s hardly likely a quote favorable to ID would make the Lewontin bio and survive.

    Wikipedia is an outstanding source for non controversial facts. For example, what are the songs in a specific Broadway musical or how many people does a specific county have. But if either threatened a worldview of the left, they would be gone.

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – if there is overwhelming evidence, where is it? I’m sure ba77 would like to know too.

  19. 19
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @7, 13, and Jerry @17,
    Thanks for the well-researched responses!

    Sorry, Bob O’H, Wikipedia is routinely rejected as a legitimate source in academia. Since you brought it up, why don’t you instead demonstrate that academia indeed recognizes that Wikipedia is authoritative rather than giving Bornagain77 and ET homework assignments that you then simply reject out of hand?

    -Q

  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    Querius – I didn’t bring up whether Wikipedia was a reliable source in academia. you’re confusing me with ba77, which is (I’m sure) rather embarrassing for both of us.

  21. 21
    Querius says:

    ba77 @ 7 – if in popular culture Lewontin is most famous for that quote, how come it isn’t even mentioned on the Wikipedia page?

    Sounds like an appeal to authority to me . . .

    -Q

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    at 15 Bob tries to maintain that wikipedia is somehow neutral with regards to ID.

    That is laughable,

    .For instance, here are Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer’s entries on wikipedia,

    Michael J. Behe (born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).[2][3]

    William Albert “Bill” Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. He was a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience,[1]

    Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God,[1][2] presented with the claim that it is “an evidence-based scientific theory”.[3][4]

    And here is the entry on Intelligent Design itself.

    Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”.[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[6]

    The interesting thing about atheistic trolls, via wikipedia, falsely, and repeatedly, claiming that ID is a pseudoscience is that it is the unwavering assumption of naturalism, which Lewontin himself championed, which turns out to be pseudoscience. i.e. “we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”

    As should be needless to say, such a dogmatic a-priori assumption of what answers are allowed is against the very spirit of the scientific method itself. A ‘spirit’ of open enquiry and a willingness to follow the scientific evidence wherever it may lead.

    Indeed, such an a-priori materialistic assumption, before any evidence has even been weighed, is downright anti-science. Such a dogmatic assumption basically makes atheistic naturalism impervious to falsification.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    Lewontin, and other atheists, are basically undermining the entire scientific enterprise itself by dictating what answers they are willing to accept from science beforehand.

    As should be needless to say, this is NOT science, but is a form of dogmatic Atheistic Naturalism trying to take over science by dictatorial philosophical decree, i.e. they have falsely ‘decreed’ that only their atheistic/naturalistic answers are allowed beforehand. i.e, ‘methodological naturalism’.

    Others who are not so enamored with their nihilistic atheistic religion have every right to ask them, ‘Says who? YOU???”

    Moreover, far from Intelligent Design being a ‘pseudoscience’, as atheists have repeatedly, and falsely, claimed, the very practice of science itself is based upon the presupposition of Intelligent Design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism as atheists have repeatedly and falsely claimed.

    In the first chapter of his new book, ‘Return of the God hypothesis’, Stephen Meyer goes over the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science,

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour
    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler
    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
    April 2021: Defense of all 3 presuppositions
    1
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893
    2
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959
    3
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980

    Moreover, these necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at there founding of modern science did not just evaporate into thin air because of some atheistic ‘dictatorial decree’ of methodological naturalism, but these Judeo-Christian presuppositions are still very much required for the continued practice and success of modern science.

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV.
    The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.theistic.net/papers.....cience.pdf

    Far from science being based on the assumption of methodological naturalism, (as atheists falsely, repeatedly, and self-servingly, claim), all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is instead based on the presupposition of intelligent design.

    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare to understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    Moreover, assuming methodological naturalism as being true beforehand, (as atheists try to dictate that we do before any scientific evidence has even been looked at), drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.

    For instance, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,

    And here is a detailed defense of each the preceding claims
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Contrary to what Lewontin, (and Bob), believe, the naturalistic assumption of Darwinian evolution is simply not required for doing biological science.

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    – Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    That Methodological Naturalism, or more specifically Darwinian evolution, is NOT required for doing biological science is fairly easy to prove.

    Specifically, it is found that the ‘narrative gloss’ of Darwinian explanations can easily be removed from research papers without negatively affecting the actual science of the papers, whereas teleological, i.e. design, language cannot be removed from research papers without severely compromising the integrity of the papers.

    No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology? – December 4, 2019
    If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts, (“Darwin-ectomy”), should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage.,,,
    So, here are three papers in America’s premier science journal that appear at first glance to need Darwinism, use Darwinism, support Darwinism, and thereby impart useful scientific knowledge. After subjecting them to Darwin-ectomies, though, the science not only survived, but proved healthier and more useful.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/12/no-harm-no-foul-what-if-darwinism-were-excised-from-biology/

    “the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence.
    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
    – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.

    August 2020 – Biologists Can’t Stop Using Purpose-Driven Language Because Life Really Is Designed
    Excerpt: “Since conceptual language is intrinsically metaphorical, teleological language can be dismissed as decorative if and only if it can be replaced with alternative metaphors without loss of essential meaning. I conclude that, since teleological concepts cannot be abstracted away from biological explanations without loss of meaning and explanatory power, life is inherently teleological. It is the teleological character of life which makes it a unique phenomenon requiring a unique discipline of study distinct from physics or chemistry.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/biologists-cant-stop-using-purpose-driven-language-because-life-really-is-designed/

    Verse:

    Matthew 12:37
    “For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    In short, and in conclusion, the claim from wikipedia, (via atheistic trolls who guard wikipedia as if their life depended on it), that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience, is a patently false claim that is completely opposite from the truth of the matter.

    The truth is that it is Atheistic naturalism itself that is the pseudoscientific religion that drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.

  24. 24
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description. If it were an actual science then it would be making predictions about the designer (i.e. it would have a positive heuristic), i.e. it would say more than “evolution can’t do this”. It would also have internalised methodological naturalism, i.e. even if it felt that the designer was not material, it would be using naturalism to try to scientifically investigate the designer (non-scientific investigations can of course be done without this assumption).

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- Intelligent Design offers the only scientific explanation for our existence. ID is about the DESIGN, Bob. ID makes predictions about the DESIGN, Bob. And ID is NOT anti-evolution, Bob.

    You don’t have a clue. If you and yours had anything then most likely ID would be a non-starter. Yours is the pseudo-science position. You can’t say what blind and mindless processes predict. You are just a hypocrite. Sad that you don’t even realize it.

    And finally, science does not start with any conclusion, ie naturalistic processes. The debate is telic versus blind and mindless. And you have already lost. You and yours should be scientifically investigating the ability of blind and mindless processes to do as you claim. The mechanism of differential accumulations of genetic changes is IMPOTENT with respect to universal common descent. That is what scientific investigation has uncovered. And you just ignore that. Pathetic, really.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    if there is overwhelming evidence, where is it?

    In everything wikipedia says about ID. You may disagree but then again you are part of the problem. And a clueless part at that.

  27. 27
    jerry says:

    I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description.

    ID is not a science like geology, astronomy, biology etc.

    It’s a set of conclusions using all of science (evidence) and logic to the best explanation for what science has uncovered. As of this moment science has no explanation for how evolution occurred. Their current explanation involves DNA which is obviously a non starter.

    For most of science’s conclusions, ID will agree with the conclusions of science but not all.

    So to call ID a pseudoscience is a major misnomer based on ignorance. Especially when those making the false accusations are themselves promulgating false conclusions and thus promoting a pseudoscience.

    Aside: tell me one thing that ID has got wrong.

  28. 28
    Querius says:

    Jerry @27,
    Nicely explained, but I think Bob O’H has already accepted the nonsensical position that ID is competing with sciences, such as geology or physics.

    He doesn’t understand that ID is the presumption of design while Darwinism presumes anything that’s not fully understood must be random “junk” (such as “junk” DNA).

    ID accepts scientific data at face value, such as the carbon-14 tests on dinosaur tissue but does not presume more poorly understood non-coding DNA is random junk. So, when Darwinists parade a list of over 100 “vestigial” organs in the early 20th century, they should be embarrassed that this list has now dwindled down to approximately 0.

    But they’re not, and no amount of data will change their minds.

    -Q

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob states, “I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description.”

    I assume that the ‘most of us’ that Bob is referring to are his fellow Darwinian naturalists/atheists in academia. How convenient of him to reference his own personal little echo chamber as an authority on what constitutes real science and what constitutes pseudoscience.

    To put it mildly, Bob, and his fellow Darwinian atheists, would not know real science if it bit them on the rear end.

    Contrary to what Bob apparently believes, science itself is certainly not a ‘natural’ and/or “material”, endeavor of man.

    As the following article succinctly states the dilemma facing atheistic materialists, in regards to their claim that science presupposes naturalism. “The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy.”

    Is Life Unique? David L. Abel – January 2012
    ?Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
    ?http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/?

    If Bob can not see the glaring, irresolvable, dilemma for his atheistic naturalism in the fact that the scientific method itself cannot be reduced to any possible naturalistic explanation, then there really is not much hope for him is there?. He simply is blinded by his Darwinian atheism and is impervious to reason.

    The simplest way to demonstrate that ID is science and that Darwinian evolution is pseudoscience, is by Popper’s criteria of falsification. As stated previously,

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    And ID is easily falsifiable, All one has to do is just violate the “Law of Conservation of Information”, (Dembski, Marks Ewert)

    Evolutionary Informatics
    https://evoinfo.org/publications.html

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel – 2011
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”,,,
    Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility.
    http://www.academia.edu/Docume.....mpleteness

    In fact, there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered by Perry Mashall and company for the first person, or team, who can falsify Intelligent Design and prove that unguided material processes can produce a code.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – January 2020
    Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt.
    This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org.
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    As Perry Marshall succinctly stated elsewhere, ““Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    Whereas, on the other hand, Darwinian evolution has no discernible falsification criteria so as to differentiate it from a pseudoscience. i.e. To demonstrate that it “speaks about reality” as Popper himself put it.

    As Denis Noble stated, “it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it (Darwinian evolution) is not a scientific theory.”

    Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to ‘Neo-Darwinism is just fine’ – 2015
    Excerpt: “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
    – Denis Noble – Oxford – Professor Emeritus and co-Director of Computational Physiology.
    https://jeb.biologists.org/content/218/16/2659

    And In 1967 Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich stated that the Theory of Evolution ‘cannot be refuted by any possible observations’ and is thus “outside empirical science.”

    “Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus “outside empirical science” but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.”
    – Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352

    And that statement by Ehrlich is not hyperbole by any stretch.

    Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

    Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, and as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    There is simply nothing that Darwinists can point to within their theory and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science instead of a pseudoscience’.

    As Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor explained, “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. ,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

    There is much more that could be said in regards to Darwinian evolution being a pseudoscience, rather that a real science, but suffice it for now to say that Darwinian evolution is not even worthy to tie the shoelaces of Intelligent Design in regards to ID being a ‘real’, and testable, scientific theory.

  30. 30
    Jack says:

    Bob O’H: I appreciate that you might not like the description of ID as pseudo-science, but for most of us it is an accurate description.

    Mere rhetoric. Sure, the darwin priesthood that has a strangle hold on academia naturally thinks outsiders are cultists. What you’re saying is like the Roman Catholic Magisterium saying, “I appreciate that you might not like the description of Protestantism as heresy, but for most of us it is an accurate description.”

  31. 31
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 27 –

    ID is not a science like geology, astronomy, biology etc.

    On this we can agree. After all, geology, astronomy, biology etc. are making progress.

    Aside: tell me one thing that ID has got wrong.

    Its models of evolution. The basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”, but it fails to use actual models of evolution. Instead it uses a non-sensical model, and smuggles in an infinite number of fitness surfaces to try to justify this.

    Querius @ 28 –

    Nicely explained, but I think Bob O’H has already accepted the nonsensical position that ID is competing with sciences, such as geology or physics.

    In what sense do you mean competing?

    He doesn’t understand that ID is the presumption of design while Darwinism presumes anything that’s not fully understood must be random “junk” (such as “junk” DNA).

    I understand that ID presumes design, but your statement about “Darwinism” is wrong, whether you meant Darwinism or modern evolutionary biology. Things that are not fully understood are things to be investigated further – they are problems to be solved. That’s the way a real science works.

    ba77 @ 29 –

    I assume that the ‘most of us’ that Bob is referring to are his fellow Darwinian naturalists/atheists in academia.

    Fellow scientists, many (most?) of whom are Christian.

    To put it mildly, Bob, and his fellow Darwinian atheists, would not know real science if it bit them on the rear end.

    Err, right. How would you know what science is?

    And ID is easily falsifiable, All one has to do is just violate the “Law of Conservation of Information”,

    If you ever did Philosophy of Science 101, you would know why this isn’t a valid argument. Of course, if you had done Philosophy of Science 101, you wouldn’t be using Popper’s demarcation criterion.

    Jack @ 30 –

    Sure, the darwin priesthood that has a strangle hold on academia naturally thinks outsiders are cultists.

    And your priesthood are Discovery Institute Fellows.

    Science is a big tent, and I can’t see why ID couldn’t join us. But it would mean doing science – developing theories, doing experiments, being open to criticism etc. When I started following ID about 15 years ago, it looks like it was in a Kuhnian “pre-science” phase: flapping around trying to find a paradigm, i.e. a theoretical framework to work in. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to have advanced. There are ideas, like the information stuff, but that doesn’t get connected up to any empirical results in any meaningful sense.

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    In drawing the fact out that Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience that is NOT based on the scientific method, it is interesting to note that when Darwin first published his theory that many prominent scientists of his day roundly criticized Darwin for not using the scientific method.

    In making this point clear, it is first necessary to point out the fact that the scientific method itself is based on inductive reasoning, and is not based on the deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks.

    Inductive reasoning, i.e. Repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, (who, by the way, was a devout Christian), has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And inductive reasoning has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.

    Francis Bacon, 1561–1626
    Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water.
    https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html

    And it is exactly in the failure of Darwinists to use inductive reasoning, (i.e. repeated experimentation), over and above deductive reasoning, where Darwinian evolution has gone off the rails as a scientific theory.

    As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book “Darwin, Then and Now”, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”

    Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson
    The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected.
    Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature.
    Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/

    i.e. Darwinists, in very large measure, still cling to the deductive form of reasoning of the Ancient Greeks. Which, as far as science itself in concerned, is an inherently flawed form of reasoning in which Darwinists pronounce on how the world should behave, (via their major premise of atheistic naturalism), with insufficient ‘experimental’ attention being given to how the world does in fact behave.

    As Henry Schaefer explained, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”

    “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
    – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415

    “Bottom up” inductive reasoning is, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks , (and of modern Darwinists).

    Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph
    https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg

    Inductive reasoning
    Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one’s experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3]
    Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

    Darwinists, in their deductive form of reasoning, (and as Lewontin himself made clear), simply assume atheistic naturalism to be true, and never allow the empirical evidence itself to question their a-priori assumption, and/or premise, of atheistic naturalism. As Lewontin himself stated, “that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

    This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, (which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, and where empirical evidence is allowed to lead us to a ‘probable’ truth), was first elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.

    In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.

    The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016
    Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation

    And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was actually championing a entirely new method of inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s deductive reasoning, (where one’s priori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.

    Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video
    Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

    And to repeat, it is exactly in the failure of Darwinists to use inductive reasoning, over and above deductive reasoning, where Darwinian evolution has gone off the rails as a scientific theory.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.

    Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860)
    Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review
    Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived.
    http://www.victorianweb.org/sc.....rigin.html

    In other words, Darwin had failed to use the scientific method and produce any original experimental research that might support his theory.

    And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”

    Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859
    Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?-
    As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,,
    ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
    Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    And it was not as if Darwin himself was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.

    Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”

    Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857
    My dear Gray,
    ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

    In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”

    Scientific Method
    Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote:
    “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/

    In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method!

    And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists.

    To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,

    In fact, (and as I elucidated at post 29), at practically every turn, the scientific evidence itself directly contradicts Darwin’s theory.

    As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book, “Darwin, Then and Now”, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”

    Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview
    Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection.
    Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species.
    After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.”
    – ibid

    It is also interesting to note what Francis Bacon himself considered to be the best evidence for the truthfulness of a ‘theory’.

    Francis Bacon, (the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically he stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”

    Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019
    Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately?
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/

    And in terms of ‘fruits produced’, Darwinian evolution has been, to put it mildly, a bust.

    In so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle in biological science i.e. as a heuristic, it has grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, and wildly inaccurate predictions, such as its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, eugenics, etc.. etc…

    Moreover, in society at large, the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian evolution have been far worse than they have been for the biological sciences.

    In fact, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced in their murderous political philosophies by Darwinian ideology.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

    In short, and in conclusion, Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, based on the scientific method, and in so far as ‘fruits produced’ criteria of Francis Bacon himself, (to determine whether a philosophy is true or not), Darwinian evolution, by the unfathomably horrid misery that it has caused mankind, is shown to be a grievously false philosophy.

    Darwinism, both scientifically and politically, has been a complete disaster for mankind that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.

    Matthew 7:18-20
    A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

  34. 34
    jerry says:

    Its models of evolution. The basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”, but it fails to use actual models of evolution. Instead it uses a non-sensical model, and smuggles in an infinite number of fitness surfaces to try to justify this.

                    No!!!!

    Besides being gobbledygook (infinite number of fitness surfaces) and lies (uses non-sensical models) it fails to acknowledge that the accepted model of evolution is pseudoscience.

    ID is actually a philosophy of science that’s better than any philosophy of science in any university on the planet. It accepts 99.9999% of the conclusions of most science but adds logical conclusions to some findings based on observation of how the world works.

    For example, it eliminates any conclusions in the evolution debate based on DNA. The mechanism of DNA cannot possibly explain how new body parts, essential parts of complex organism could have arisen. Let alone explain how the DNA to protein mechanism could have arisen.

    Thus, ID is actually much better science.

                ID is science plus

    Ironically, just the opposite of what Wikipedia describes which actually pushes pseudoscience in its articles.

  35. 35
    William J Murray says:

    RDW said:

    I can’t prove whether there is an afterlife or not. However I’m conducting my life as if there will be one. If I’m wrong, I’ll never know it. I hate finding out I was wrong, especially if it’s too late to do anything about it.

    I assume you mean, you can’t prove it to yourself, as in you are incapable of looking over the evidence? Can’t, or just assume you can’t?

  36. 36
    davidl1 says:

    I don’t think ID “presumes” design, it just doesn’t rule it out.

  37. 37
    jerry says:

    “Blume’s Law Concerning the Origin and Function of Living Cells:

    The increase in scientific understanding about what the content of cells and their inner workings are is directly proportional to the distance science is from solving the enigma of how cells originated, and how cells control their internal functions.

    The increase in scientific understanding about what groups of cells do in multicellular organisms is directly proportional to the distance science is from solving the enigma of how cell groups are controlled and coordinated, how they differentiate embryonically, and how multicellular organisms originated

    This is a tongue in cheek comparison to Moore’s Law by Blume but about evolution and biology.

    From Stephen Blume’s book Evo-Illusion.

    Yesterday I told someone that there wasn’t one expert in the world on evolution. The closest person to an expert on evolution is an ex dentist from Los Angeles.

    Want to see a good use of Wikipedia? Use it to see origin of term “tongue in cheek” but not if it became political. Then it would be distorted.

  38. 38
    jerry says:

    I don’t think ID “presumes” design, it just doesn’t rule it out.

    Exactly.

    As I tongue in cheek said, ID accepts 99.9999% of sciences findings. Someone once asked me, are you sure of that percentage?

  39. 39
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    After all, geology, astronomy, biology etc. are making progress.

    Biologists can’t even answer the most basic question pertaining to biology- they don’t know what determines biological form.

    Its models of evolution. The basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”, but it fails to use actual models of evolution. Instead it uses a non-sensical model, and smuggles in an infinite number of fitness surfaces to try to justify this.

    Total nonsense. ID does not model evolution. Only fools and liars say that ID’s basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”. You are pathetic.

    Look, Bob, you are obviously totally clueless. You don’t understand ID and you definitely don’t understand science.

  40. 40
    ET says:

    The sad part about people like Bob O’H is they can’t point to anyone doing any blind watchmaker research. They can’t say what their position predicts. They can’t say how to test the claims they are making. And they definitely cannot say how their position is scientific.

    All they can do is erect strawmen of ID and attack those. Pathetic, really.

  41. 41
    Jack says:

    BOB O’H: And your priesthood are Discovery Institute Fellows.

    Unlike people who are stuck in the world of entrenched academic groupthink, social and professional pressure, funding pressures, etc., I don’t follow or belong to a priesthood. But apparently you agree with the essence of my previous reply to you. Groupthink consensus is not evidence nor an argument.

    “Science is a big tent, and I can’t see why ID couldn’t join us.”

    I think the problem is on the other side. The academic world is solidly committed, at least publically and institutionally, to an anti-telic position. Critics of ID generally don’t even know the difference between ID and “creationism.”

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob sniffs his academic/atheistic nose and scoffs at Popper’s criteria of falsification,

    “if you had done Philosophy of Science 101, you wouldn’t be using Popper’s demarcation criterion.”

    It is interesting that many academic atheists, and particularly Darwinists, will often scoff at Popper’s criteria of falsification, yet Richard Feynman himself, primary founder of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), thought that falsifiability was the ‘key to science’. i.e. “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”

    “Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
    If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman –
    Richard Feynman Teaches you the Scientific Method
    https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/

    Einstein himself also held falsification in great esteem

    “The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “Yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.”
    – Einstein

    Moreover, if any theories have ever survived repeated attempts at empirical falsification, and came out the other end with flying colors, Feynman’s theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Einstein’s theories of relativity are those theories.

    The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
    Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?
    It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
    In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:
    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
    Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).
    http://scienceblogs.com/princi.....sted-theo/

    It is no wonder that Darwinian atheists, such as Bob, would try to belittle falsification, besides Darwin’s theory, (as was pointed out in post 29), being falsified time and time again by empirical observation, Darwin’s pseudoscientific theory also simply has nothing to compare with QED in regards to being empirically testable and potentially falsifiable.

    As Berlinski notes, “Quantum electrodynamics (QED) 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?”

    “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 (QED) 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

    Darwin’s pseudoscientific theory simply has nothing to offer in comparison to QED and Relativity.

    Moverover, even if we, for the sake of argument, grant Bob’s contention that Popper’s falsification criteria is not a reliable guide for demarcating whether a theory is truly scientific or not, we find that Darwinian evolution still fails to qualify as a science.

    Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, basically tried to tiptoe around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science,,,

    A Philosophical Question… Does Evolution have a Hard Core?
    Some Concluding Food for Thought
    In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the disruptive effects that its application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24)

    “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.”

    So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off…
    http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosm.....ore_pg.htm

    ,,,and although Lakatos tried to tiptoe around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science, Lakatos was at least brave enough to state, “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”

    Lakatos also stated that “a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena.”

    20 years after Lakatos’ challenge to Darwin as a valid scientific theory, Helena Cronin found that “Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions..”

    Imre Lakatos – Pseudoscience – Darwin’s Theory
    According to the demarcation criterion of pseudoscience originally proposed by Lakatos, a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories, which predict novel fact(s).[21] Progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted. As he put it:
    “A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it….The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one.”
    See pages 34–5 of The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978.
    Lakatos’s own key examples of pseudoscience were Ptolemaic astronomy, Immanuel Velikovsky’s planetary cosmogony, Freudian psychoanalysis, 20th century Soviet Marxism,[22] Lysenko’s biology, Niels Bohr’s Quantum Mechanics post-1924, astrology, psychiatry, sociology, neoclassical economics, and Darwin’s theory.
    Darwin’s theory
    In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he also claimed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”.
    Almost 20 years after Lakatos’s 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that
    “our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts…Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions..”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience

    Thus according to Lakatos’ criteria of novel predictions, Darwin’s theory is, again, found to be a pseudoscience and not a real scientific theory.

    Another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term ‘paradigm shift’ into American culture, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”

    Thomas Kuhn
    Excerpt: Thomas Samuel Kuhn (/ku?n/; July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom.,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

    Inquiry-Based Science Education — on Everything but Evolution – Sarah Chaffee – January 22, 2016
    Excerpt: As Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when faced with an anomaly, a theory’s defenders “will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02534.html

    And in regards to a theory making predictions that are shown to be false and then making up ad hoc theories to try to cover up those falsified predictions, then by that ‘ad hoc’ criteria laid out be Kuhn, Darwinian evolution more than qualifies as a pseudoscience rather than a real science. Here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the failed predictions of Darwinian evolution.

    Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Cornelius Hunter
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/

    As Dr. Hunter states in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”

    Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014
    Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
    – Cornelius Hunter
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....uples.html

    In regards to defenders of Darwin’s theory making up ad hoc ‘just so stories’ in order to cover up embarrassing falsified predictions, it is humorous to note that the only thing that anyone can ever seem to catch ‘evolving’ in the real world is the theory of Darwinian evolution itself. As Dr. Hunter notes in the following article, Darwin’s pseudoscientific theory is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    – Cornelius Hunter – Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine – December 2, 2010

    As should be obvious, if your theory can explain completely contradictory results with equal ease, then it is, for all practical purposes, completely useless as a scientific theory and is more properly classified as a pseudoscience.

    Thus is short, and in conclusion, by Popper’s falsification criteria, by Lakatos’ ‘novel prediction’ criteria, and by Kuhn’s ‘ad hoc’ stories criteria, Darwin’s theory fails to qualify as a real science and is found to be a pseudoscience three times over.

    As they say in baseball, “three strikes and you’re out”.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  43. 43
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 34 – the infinite fitness surfaces comes from the NFL theorems. Just because you don’t know about something or don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s gobbledygook.

    ET @ 39 –

    Total nonsense. ID does not model evolution. Only fools and liars say that ID’s basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”. You are pathetic.

    So is Bill Dembski a fool or a liar in your book? Are the other people on this site fools or liars? Seriously, this is the whole basis of the explanatory filter – remove evolution as an explanation, and infer design by abduction.

    Jack @ 41 –

    I think the problem is on the other side. The academic world is solidly committed, at least publically and institutionally, to an anti-telic position.

    I don’t think that’s quite right. it’s committed to an anit-creationist position, because (a) creationism is bad science, (b) science shouldn’t rely on a theological position (because, to simplify somewhat, you can’t do experiments with God.

    Critics of ID generally don’t even know the difference between ID and “creationism.”

    Which ID types haven’ t helped by conflating the two. There was a trial about it about 15 years ago.

    If ID wants to be a science, it really has to distance itself from creationism. One way to do this is to make a public commitment to methodological naturalism (which doesn’t mean making a commitment to materialism, only to basing your science on what can be observed in the natural world. Weirdly, when ID tries to do science it actually does this, e.g. with information theory, the explanatory filter etc.).

    ba77 @ 42 – as you’re citing Kuhn and Lakatos, you should read up on their criticisms of Popper. Falsification doesn’t work, either historically or logically. never mind Darwinism, it would say that most p of physics is not science – Newton was falsified, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified but in all these cases the theories weren’t discarded.

  44. 44
    jerry says:

    The NFL theorems are not ID. At best they may be one of a thousand tools that people use to analyze scientific data. They may or may not have implications for design of something. I am certainly not an expert. But your statement is still gobbledygook. It comes out of left field, an American expression for nonsense.

    I have never seen these theorems discussed on this site despite Dembski writing a book titled “No Free Lunch.” Dembski wanted to use mathematics to prove design. I have no idea of the status but it’s absurd to cite it. Even if he was successful, it would just be one of those thousand tools.

    If you have any information on why they are essential to the design inference, feel free to point out the discussions and why. They don’t show up in the archives except for a couple odd extraneous threads.

    Also equating ID with creationism is a logical fallacy. Why do that? You know it’s wrong to suggest that.

    If ID wants to be a science, it really has to distance itself from creationism. One way to do this is to make a public commitment to methodological naturalism (which doesn’t mean making a commitment to materialism, only to basing your science on what can be observed in the natural world

    As you said ID does this. It actually is better at science than the universities are. If it doesn’t, please provide examples.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob claims, “,,,, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified,,,”

    [citation please]

    Criticism of the theory of relativity
    Excerpt: “The theory of relativity is considered to be self-consistent, is consistent with many experimental results, and serves as the basis of many successful theories like quantum electrodynamics. Therefore, fundamental criticism (like that of Herbert Dingle, Louis Essen, Petr Beckmann, Maurice Allais and Tom van Flandern) has not been taken seriously by the scientific community, and due to the lack of quality of many critical publications (found in the process of peer review) they were rarely accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#Status_of_criticism

    Has the Second Law Been Falsified?
    Victor Stenger September 1, 2002
    Excerpt: So, has a violation of the second law of thermodynamics been demonstrated in an Australian laboratory? Hardly.
    https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/has-the-second-law-been-falsified/

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011
    Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;?In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
    Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
    – Eddington

    I’m certain that if any of those theories would have been truly falsified, as Bob has claimed, then that would have rocked the scientific world.

  46. 46
    Bob O'H says:

    Jerry @ 44 –

    The NFL theorems are not ID. … They may or may not have implications for design of something. I am certainly not an expert.

    Indeed. If you were an expert, or even if you had read Demski’s book you would know that the NFL theorems form the basis of the argument that a search can be no better than random, unless there is an intelligence behind it. I guess it’s not a surprise that it comes out of left field for you if you’re not aware of the basics of the maths behind ID

    Also equating ID with creationism is a logical fallacy. Why do that?

    That’s something to ask your fellow cdesign proponentsists.
    ba77 – I’ll get back to you (it’s too late to search now). But I didn’t say they were “truly falsified”, just falsified. What is interesting is how scientists react to apparent falsification: a Popperian should reject the theory. But that’s not always what happens, hence even well established theories have falsifications.

  47. 47
    Bob O'H says:

    Oh, I just remembered a falsification of the first law of thermodynamics – E = mc^2. The first law says that energy remains constant, but we now know it and mass can be inter-converted.

  48. 48
    jerry says:

    I guess it’s not a surprise that it comes out of left field for you if you’re not aware of the basics of the maths behind ID

    As far as I know there is no math behind ID. I know logic is used to estimate probabilities of natural events but beyond that, what math?

    Dembski started this site but he is only one person and he has had a flawed vision at times. So he hardly represents ID.

    By the way I once was banned from this site because I criticized Dembski’s weak understanding of the issues or his inability to explain them. He did not seem to understand the differences between micro and macro evolution and the implications. Or at least he did not use it in laying out the problems of evolution as taught in the universities. Consequentially he was often ineffective.

  49. 49
    jerry says:

    I know that some have used esoteric mathematical techniques to show that some things are impossible or incredibly improbable. But that is one tool only used by people looking at science. It is not a necessary tool for ID to evaluate scientific findings.

    ID is about looking at the findings of science and coming to the best explanation.

    One is that the DNA to protein process while amazing cannot explain evolution. So one has to look elsewhere. No Free Lunch theorems are not necessary for this.

    I have no idea if they are sufficient to make such a conclusion.

  50. 50
    Sandy says:

    🙂 Darwinism is working with ID tools and darwinists say ID is pseudoscience? Hahaha!
    How in the world would have own goals/purpose some non rational life forms when we as rational beings don’t have goals to “convince” cells/organs/systems do their job. This is a automated task that have preseted goals into ALL processes that take place. Everything happening in living systems point to a clear goal. Randomness, chance has no goals and point to no goal while living organisms point to a purpose, have many complex mechanisms that concur to attain a clear target.

    You can’t have a theory of evolution without an apriori concept of purpose. Of course Darwin tried to inject randomness but only after he rationalized “the purpose” of living beings (in order to start the story of evolution you need a rational hook). 😉

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob claims, “I just remembered a falsification of the first law of thermodynamics – E = mc^2. The first law says that energy remains constant, but we now know it and mass can be inter-converted.”

    Yet, the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of mass were based on our 19th century understanding of physics. The modern understanding is that mass and energy are effectively the same thing, (i.e. e=mc2), and can actually be converted to and from each other. The real conservation law is conservation of mass-energy.

    Conservation of mass-energy
    ,,, the English physicist J.J. Thomson showed in 1881 that the energy stored in the fields around a moving charged particle varies as the square of the velocity as if there were extra mass carried with the electric field around the particle. Herein lie the seeds of the general mass–energy relationship developed by Einstein in his special theory of relativity; E = mc2 expresses the association of mass with every form of energy. Neither of two separate conservation laws, that of energy and that of mass (the latter particularly the outcome of countless experiments involving chemical change), is in this view perfectly true, but together they constitute a single conservation law, which may be expressed in two equivalent ways—conservation of mass, if to the total energy E is ascribed mass E/c2, or conservation of energy, if to each mass m is ascribed energy mc2. The delicate measurements by Eötvös and later workers (see above) show that the gravitational forces acting on a body do not distinguish different types of mass, whether intrinsic to the fundamental particles or resulting from their kinetic and potential energies. For all its apparently artificial origins, then, this conservation law enshrines a very deep truth about the material universe, one that has not yet been fully explored.
    https://www.britannica.com/science/principles-of-physical-science/Conservation-of-mass-energy#ref366373

    Moreover,

    The Conservation of Mass-Energy
    There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states:

    matter is neither created nor destroyed.
    In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy. In its most compact form, it it now called the First Law of Thermodynamics:

    energy is neither created nor destroyed.
    In 1907 (I think), Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:

    the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.
    Generally, textbooks would add, as I am doing, that mass and energy can interconvert.

    An interesting historical footnote: during the radioactive decay called beta decay, tremendous amounts of energy were being produced. This was expected, but what was not was that the energy amounts released varied widely for the exact same decay process. The amounts should always have been the same. This was very puzzling to the early researchers and I believe it was Niels Bohr who proposed that the Law of Conservation of Energy was being violated. Of course, this turned out to not be the case.

    The correct answer was a new particle called the “neutrino,” proposed about 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli. The neutrino was finally detected in 1952 (I think) and the discoverers were able to inform Pauli, then near death due to cancer. By the way, the neutrino is a very, very important particle in modern science. You may wish to research how neutrinos were useful in learning about Supernova 1987A.

    The Law of Conservation of Mass is still a useful idea in chemistry. This is because the energy changes in a chemical reaction are so tiny that they did not affect any measurements. 100 kJ is a typical value for the energy involved in a chemical reaction and it is only about 10¯9 gram. Only recently has such a small amount been able to be accurately measured. The mass loss or gain due to energy loss or gain in a chemical reaction may someday be something that is routinely measured.
    https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/Law-Cons-Mass-Energy.html

  52. 52
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    So is Bill Dembski a fool or a liar in your book? Are the other people on this site fools or liars? Seriously, this is the whole basis of the explanatory filter – remove evolution as an explanation, and infer design by abduction.

    WRONG! First, and foremost, Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Intelligent Design is OK with organisms being intelligently designed with the ability and information required to adapt and evolution. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design. They are goal oriented, targeted searches.

    Second, the explanatory filter is just standard operating procedure. It forces you to follow Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. Archaeologists have to eliminate nature as a cause of the effect they are investigating. And they also have to find signs of work, ie a specification. It is NOT enough to eliminate blind and mindless processes. As Dembski has written, there still must be some specification met. It’s a very simple flow chart, Bob. You have to misrepresent it on purpose. Why do you do that?

    And it STILL remains that according to the standard operating procedure you and yours have all of the power to refute ID’s claims. And yet you can’t. I understand why that bothers you.

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, there are a few interesting things in your trying to claim the conservation of Mass-Energy has been falsified. First, I’ve NEVER seen anyone else ever try to claim that. Secondly, you used special relativity to try to do it, yet earlier in the thread you had falsely claimed that relativity has, itself, been falsified. So why are you using a theory that you claim has been falsified to try to falsify another theory? Seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

    But anyways, and thirdly, aside from that minor quibble, if you really wanted to demonstrate that the conservation of Mass-Energy has been falsified, a much easier way for you to have done so is by appealing directly to the Big Bang.

    I cannot think of a more spectacular violation of the conservation of Mass-Energy than the fact that all the mass-energy of the universe was instantaneously created approx. 14 billion years ago.

    But then again, by appealing to that spectacular falsification of the conservation of Mass-Energy, you would have severely undermined your own atheistic worldview in the process. So I guess, (since it clearly seems that you would much rather be an atheist than ever be honest with the scientific evidence), that explains why that particular, spectacular, falsification of the conservation of Mass-Energy slipped your mind.

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
    – Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    – Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    – Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), ?

    “The question of ‘the beginning’ is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians…there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing”
    – George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.189. – George Smoot is a Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE

    “‘Let There Be Light’ should actually be translated ‘Be Light!’. In other words, it was not a request.”
    – Hebrew Essentials with Danny Ben-Gigi

  54. 54
    ET says:

    Earth to Bob O’H- There isn’t any scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. There aren’t any observations that support materialism. The only observations that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are deformities and genetic diseases.

    You are being a hypocrite.

  55. 55
    Jack says:

    Jerry, you are not that smart, but you’ll a little smart.

    Keep fighting the good fight.

  56. 56
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    Yet, the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of mass were based on our 19th century understanding of physics. The modern understanding is that mass and energy are effectively the same thing, (i.e. e=mc2), and can actually be converted to and from each other.

    Indeed. The original law was falsified by Einstein (it may already have been falsified). But it wasn’t abandoned – it was modified.

    First, I’ve NEVER seen anyone else ever try to claim that. Secondly, you used special relativity to try to do it, yet earlier in the thread you had falsely claimed that relativity has, itself, been falsified. So why are you using a theory that you claim has been falsified to try to falsify another theory? Seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

    Err, no. My point is that falsification of theories doesn’t lead to them being abandoned. The falsification is dealt with in other ways, e.g. by inventing a new planet.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    One wonders if Bob even reads his own posts.

    Bob’s original claim was, “Falsification doesn’t work, either historically or logically. never mind Darwinism, it would say that most of physics is not science – Newton was falsified, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified but in all these cases the theories weren’t discarded.”

    Yet Einstein has not been falsified. And the modern version of thermodynamics, i.e. conservation of mass energy, has also not been falsified.

    Moreover, it was the falsification of Newton’s theory, (i.e. disagreement between the mathematical predictions of Newton’s theory and experimental results), that was one of the primary reasons that led Einstein to formulate his non-falsified theory of General Relativity.

    In that instance, falsification worked just like it was suppose to work in science, and led to a far deeper understanding of the universe with relativity.

    Bob objects that Newton’s theory, despite being falsified, is still around and was not discarded. Yet everyone knows that Newton’s theory is not the correct description of gravity. The only reason that Newton’s theory continues to ‘hang around’ physics departments is that, in most instances, save for in strong gravitational fields, it is much easier to calculate planetary motions using Newton’s simpler equation than by using Einstein’s more complex general relativity equation.

    In regards to thermodynamics, it was the realisation that matter and energy can be converted to one another, (via e=mc’2, i.e. special relativity), that led to the two 19th century laws, (i.e. the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy), being combined into the one modern law, (i.e. The conservation of mass-energy). In fact, it was not so much a falsification of the law of conservation of energy as it was merely a ‘unification’ of the two original laws into the one modern conservation law,,,, a law which has not been falsified. (at least it has not been falsified since its spectacular falsification in the Big Bang itself)

    So again, ‘falsification’ in that instance worked just as it was suppose to work and led to a ‘new’ conservation law that has not been falsified. A law that has given us a much deeper understanding of the universe.

    But Bob falsely claimed that both relativity and thermodynamics has been falsified, and moreover, Bob claimed that “most of physics is not science” because relativity and thermodynamics has supposedly been falsified.

    Bob claims about thermodynamics and relativity being falsified, as he originally intended his claims to undermine physics as a true science,, are blatantly false claims.

    Physics and the principle of falsification get along quite well Bob, and certainly does not need any advice from a Darwinist, such as yourself, who ignores the principle of falsification whenever it suits him and who continues to cling to a outdated 19th century theory, despite that theory being falsified time and again in its core presuppositions. (see post 29 for a few falsifications of core Darwinian presuppositions, that Darwinists continually to ignore).

  58. 58
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    My point is that falsification of theories doesn’t lead to them being abandoned.

    That all depends on what was falsified. It also depends if the concept was a theory or not. For example, evolution by means of blind and mindless processes doesn’t even qualify as a theory.

  59. 59
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    Oh, I just remembered a falsification of the first law of thermodynamics – E = mc^2. The first law says that energy remains constant, but we now know it and mass can be inter-converted.

    Please provide an academic reference to support your claim.

  60. 60
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – you’re not understanding my point. Falsification doesn’t necessarily lead to rejection. Newton was falsified by astronomical observations and the resolution wasn’t to abandon his theories, but to invent another planet. Which, if you think about it, is nuts.

    “Our theory doesn’t work, so let’s keep the theory and instead invent a large ball of rock”.

    How can a falsificationist defend that approach to falsification?

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob you are not understanding what you wrote. You claimed that “most of physics is not science” because “,,, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified”.

    Your claim is blatantly false. Einstein has never been falsified, and it is more appropriate to say that thermodynamics was ‘slightly’ modified to include mass-energy into one term rather than claiming it has been outright falsified as a theory and replaced by another brand new theory.(As Einstein replaced Newton’s falsified theory with his brand new, unfalsified, theory) i.e. The modern conservation law, via the slight modification, is unfalsified! i.e. No mythical planet Vulcan needed!

    Now if you really want to talk about the insanity of ‘inventing planets’ solely in order to save a theory from falsification, I suggest you look no further than your own pseudoscientific theory of Darwinian evolution.

    For instance, ‘punctuated equilibrium’ amounts to a “my dog ate all my transitional fossils” excuse for why the fossil record does not conform to Darwinian expectations.

  62. 62
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    You claimed that “most of physics is not science” because “,,, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified”.

    *sigh* No, I’ve never claimed that.

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob states, “*sigh* No, I’ve never claimed that.”

    Yet at the bottom of post 43

    as you’re citing Kuhn and Lakatos, you should read up on their criticisms of Popper. Falsification doesn’t work, either historically or logically. never mind Darwinism, it would say that most p of physics is not science – Newton was falsified, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified but in all these cases the theories weren’t discarded.
    https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/richard-lewontin-1929-2021/#comment-733891

    Save for deleting the p, which I charitably assumed to be an error on your part, I quoted you verbatim.

    Again, Einstein has certainly not been falsified, and thermodynamics, in its modern form, has also certainly not been falsified. Yet that is what you directly implied in your post.

    Again, those are blatantly false claims on your part and you gave no indication otherwise. Indeed, you tried to defend your false claim that thermodynamics is falsified.

    If you want to walk those claims back, the best thing for you to do is to admit you were wrong in your claims, (as they are clearly written), and/or clarify exactly where you personally stand, and where what you wrote didn’t accurately reflect what you really meant to say. It is not to deny that you ever made the claims. False claims that are right there for everybody to read.

    At least that is how most people who are not Darwinists would try to handle it.

    I guess being a Darwinist means never, ever, admitting you were wrong, even if you are caught red handed being wrong.

  64. 64
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I wasn’t trying to claim that physics is not science. Rather that the naïve falsificationist position you are espousing would have to lead to that conclusion. I appreciate that what I wrote was a bit messy, for which I apologise. I hope this clears up any confusion.

  65. 65
    ET says:

    Einstein’s equation for how gravity affects light could have been falsified without falsifying the whole of relativity. Eddington could have observed that the Sun bent light but that the stars were not where Einstein’s equation predicted.

  66. 66
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob apologizes, which is good, but he apologizes only after making this caveat, (which is not so good)

    I wasn’t trying to claim that physics is not science. Rather that the naïve falsificationist position you are espousing would have to lead to that conclusion.

    Yet I hold falsification to be far less ‘naive’ than Lakatos, Kuhn, and apparently Bob hold. Falsification is simply the bread and butter that Physics lives by.

    For instance, General Relativity survived, with flying colors, this impressive 2013 attempt to falsify it.
    As the following article states, “If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants and that is exactly where Einstein stands.”

    Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013
    Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters.
    If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants and that is exactly where Einstein stands.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-d.....-room.html

    My guess, (and it is only a guess and I could very well be wrong), but my sneaking hunch is that both Lakatos and Kuhn, (besides being personally biased to promote their own philosophical standards for judging whether a theory is pseudoscientific or not), were probably heavily, and negatively, influenced in their thinking about ‘naive’ falsification by the centuries long dispute between heliocentrism and geocentrism.

    The story that is usually told is that geocentric model became so laden with epicycles that it was eventually discarded in favor of the heliocentric model.

    But that simplistic story is simply not true.

    As Philip Ball explains, “It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it.
    This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,,
    In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse.”

    The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016
    Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,,
    It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it.
    This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,,
    In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/sci.....or/495332/

    Besides the ‘epicycle story’ being false, and contrary to what is widely believed, Copernicus, nor anyone else, has ever actually experimentally proven that the geocentric model was an incorrect description of the universe, and that the heliocentric model was the ‘more correct’ description of the universe.

    There is simply no experiment that has ever been conducted by anyone that has ever proven that the earth is in motion and that the sun, (or any other place in the universe), is at rest.

    As Historian Lincoln Barnett explains, “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,”

    “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,
    If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”
    Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

    Moreover, the Copernican principle, which sprang from the heliocentric model of the universe, has now been, for all intents and purposes, experimentally overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science. (as well as being overturned by other lines of evidence)

    April 2021 – the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science:
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-of-steve-meyer-if-humans-are-so-important-to-god-why-did-they-take-so-long-to-develop/#comment-727599

    In short, the heliocentric model of the universe, contrary to what the most people believe, has now been ‘falsified’ by experimental evidence, and the geocentric model of the universe is now heavily favored by experimental evidence

    Thus in conclusion, (and although I could be wrong), I have a sneaking hunch that both Lakatos and Kuhn were heavily, and negatively, influenced in their thinking about ‘naive’ falsification by the centuries long conflict between heliocentrism and geocentrism, and the false “epicycle’ narrative that goes along with it, a narrative that is widely, (and wrongly), believed to be true.

    If so, then their argument against ‘naive’ falsification collapses since, although it was certainly a very long time in coming, the centuries long conflict between the two theories was settled and the heliocentric model of the universe was finally experimentally ‘falsified’ and the geocentric model is now heavily favored by several lines of experimental evidence.

    If my ‘sneaking hunch’ is correct about Lakatos and Kuhn being negatively influenced in their thinking about falsification because of heliocentric/geocentrism, then it is a bit of poetic justice for Popper that experimental falsification itself would have the final and last word in the entire debate.

  67. 67
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    Falsification is simply the bread and butter that Physics lives by.

    Not outside of Popper World it isn’t. And indeed once you get onto epicycles you demonstrate this:

    Besides the ‘epicycle story’ being false, and contrary to what is widely believed, Copernicus, nor anyone else, has ever actually experimentally proven that the geocentric model was an incorrect description of the universe, and that the heliocentric model was the ‘more correct’ description of the universe.

    So epicycles weren’t falsified, but were still disgarded. Take that anti-Popperians!

    I don’t have my Lakatos or Kuhn at home, so I can’t check the primary sources, but the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s page on Lakatos cite the precession of Mercury and parallax as falsifications which didn’t lead to the abandonment of (respectively) Newton and Copernicus. In the case of Mercury, it was only when Einstein came along with a better explanation that it was used to support Einstein over Newton.

    Kuhn did use the Copernican revolution as one example (amongst several others), but he acknowledges that Copernicus’ model wasn’t any simpler or more accurate. Kuhn’s argument is that Ptolomaic astronomy was in crisis: it was being falsified, and ad hoc modifications were being made. What Copernicus did was to bring a different way of thinking to the problem: it is this which enabled progress to be made in simplifying his system, and (eventually) lead to better predictions.

    Neither Kuhn nor Lakatos deny that theories aren’t tested empirically, rather they don’t have such a naïve view of the response of scientists to these tests.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    Of note, I googled ‘Kuhn Copernican Revolution” and my first result was this book on Amazon:

    The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought – Thomas S. Kuhn – 1992 (Revised edition)
    Excerpt of description: Mr. Kuhn displays the full scope of the Copernican Revolution as simultaneously an episode in the internal development of astronomy, a critical turning point in the evolution of scientific thought, and a crisis in Western man’s concept of his relation to the universe and to God.
    https://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary-Astronomy-Development/dp/0674171039

    Then I googled “Lakatos Copernican Revolution” and this paper was my first hit,

    Why did Copernicus’s research programme supersede Ptolemy’s?
    By Elie Zahar and Imre Lakatos – 1978
    Excerpt of Introduction: I first should like to offer an apology for imposing a philosophical talk upon you on the occasion of the quincentenary of Copernicus’s birth. My excuse is that a few years ago I suggested a specific method for using history of science as an arbiter of some authority when it comes to debates in philosophy of science and I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science.
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-methodology-of-scientific-research-programmes/why-did-copernicuss-research-programme-supersede-ptolemys/CBBBCA4E3CD03277CB460AE91C3D3320

    So it appears I was correct in my ‘sneaking hunch’, and that both Lakatos and Kuhn were heavily, and negatively, influenced by the centuries long heliocentric/geocentric debate in their critique of Popper’s ‘naive’ falsification. In fact Imre Lakatos, self admittedly, practically bases his entire argument on it, i.e. “I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science”,,,

    But anyways, regardless of the fact that both Lakatos and Kuhn were led astray in their own philosophies of science by the Copernican revolution, each of the standards that Lakatos and Kuhn developed, apart from falsification, to judge whether a theory is a pseudoscience of not, i.e. ‘novel predictions’ and ‘ad hoc’ stories, (and as I pointed out previously at post 42), each of those standards, by themselves, can also be used, on top of falsification, to see that Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience.

    Thus by any philosophical metric that one may choose to judge whether a theory is scientific of not, (i.e. Popper, Lakatos, or Kuhn), Darwin’s theory still fails to qualify as a science.

    As I stated previously, there is simply nothing within Darwin’s theory that the Darwinists can point to and say, “and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science and not a pseudoscience.”

    Supplemental note, (and to repeat)

    the Copernican principle, which sprang from the heliocentric model of the universe, has now been, for all intents and purposes, experimentally overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science. (as well as being overturned by other lines of evidence)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-of-steve-meyer-if-humans-are-so-important-to-god-why-did-they-take-so-long-to-develop/#comment-727599

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  69. 69
    Bob O'H says:

    Yes, they were both aware of the Copernican revolution. Now you need to provide evidence that they were “lead astray”.

    At the moment you’re at the level of suggesting Dawkins is a Christian because he has written about the Bible.

  70. 70
    ET says:

    Evolutionism, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, isn’t a theory because it is not tested empirically.

    Thank you Bob O’H.

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, first, it is “led astray” not “lead astray”.

    “Lead astray” means someone purposely deceiving someone into a wrong path, (which I often suspect Darwinists of purposely doing), “Led astray” means someone being honestly mistaken in the wrong path they are taking.

    Secondly, I have provided a link to the evidence, twice now, that Lakatos and Kuhn, (as well as practically everybody else), were “led astray” because of, first and foremost, the Copernican principle which sprang directly from the now falsified heliocentric model of the universe.

    April 2021- the Copernican principle, which sprang from the heliocentric model of the universe, has now been, for all intents and purposes, experimentally overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science. (as well as being overturned by other lines of evidence)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-of-steve-meyer-if-humans-are-so-important-to-god-why-did-they-take-so-long-to-develop/#comment-727599

    But anyways, to spell it all out once again.

    The Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, is an outgrowth of Nicolaus Copernicus’s discovery that the Earth is not the center of the solar system. (i.e. It was falsely, and simplistically, assumed that since the Earth is not the center of the solar system, then the Earth can’t possibly be the center of the universe, hence the Copernican principle).

    Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) was a mathematician and astronomer who proposed that the sun was stationary in the center of the universe and the earth revolved around it.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

    And the Copernican principle, (and/or the principle of mediocrity), is one of the two main ‘supposed’ scientific evidences, (the false narrative of human evolution being the other ‘supposed’ scientific evidence), that atheists have appealed to try to claim that man has no reason to believe that his life may have any higher purpose, meaning, value, or significance, in this universe, (much less that there may be any significance to our lives beyond our lives in this temporal universe) .

    Copernican principle
    Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1]
    Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus’s argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle.
    – per wikipedia

    Carl Sagan coined the term ‘principle of mediocrity’ to refer to the idea that scientists should assume that nothing is special about humanity’s situation
    https://books.google.com/books?id=rR5BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Mediocrity principle
    Excerpt: The (Mediocrity) principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth’s history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3]
    – per wikipedia

    In popular culture atheists have used the Copernican Principle to great effect to try to argue that man is, basically, completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

    For one instance out of many instances, in 1995 the late Stephen Hawking, (who was a fairly famous atheist), bluntly stated “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”

    “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
    – Stephen Hawking – 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,

    So there you go, according to a leading ‘scientific’ atheist, and via the Copernican principle, (which sprang directly from the now falsified heliocentric model of the universe), your life has no more significance than chemical scum.

    And yet, despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, (and therefore concede the necessary premise to Hawking’s argument that we are just chemical scum), the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principal is now shown, via our most powerful theories in science, to be a false assumption.

    First off, in establishing this fact, and directly contrary to what is widely believed, Copernicus never actually did experimentally prove that the geocentric model was a incorrect description of the universe, and that the heliocentric model was a ‘more correct’ description of the universe.

    To repeat my Philip Ball reference,

    The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016
    Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,,
    It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it.
    This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,,
    In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/sci.....or/495332/

    Simply put, just because the earth is not to be considered central in the solar system itself, that does not automatically mean, as is falsely assumed in the Copernican principle, that the Earth cannot be considered central in the universe as a whole.

    Indeed, the sun itself, contrary to what Nicolaus Copernicus held Ito be true n his heliocentric model, is certainly not to be considered central in the universe. (Shoot, technically speaking, from a mathematical standpoint, the sun is not even to be considered directly in the center of our solar system),

    Is the Sun the center of our Solar System? Why?
    Excerpt: Actually, the centre of our solar system is a spot just above the surface of the sun, directly in line with Jupiter, about 48,720 km (it varies somewhat, with the orbits of the planets) above the sun’s surface, just a little further away from the sun than our communications satellites are from us.
    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Sun-the-center-of-our-Solar-System-Why

    Nor can any other place in the universe be designated as the ‘stationary center’ of the universe.

    General Relativity itself, one of our most powerful theories in science, makes this point clear.

    As Stephen ‘chemical scum’ Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’

    “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.
    Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
    – Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010

    And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    And as Fred Hoyle, (the discoverer of the nucleosynthesis of carbon), himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

    “The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
    – Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

    And even as Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”

    “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
    – Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

    There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.

    As Einstein himself noted,

    “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.”
    –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

    “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*”
    –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

    And as Lincoln Barnett explained, “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”,,,

    “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,
    If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”
    – Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

    In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion 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/.....entre.html

    ,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, (obviously), as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,

    How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,,
    In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place.
    http://www.scientificamerican......locality//

    How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018
    Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where.
    The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,,
    The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,,
    as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, (and directly contrary to Stephen Hawking’s claim that we are merely ‘chemical scum’), according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, even individual people can be designated as the ‘center of the universe’,,,

    You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016
    Excerpt: (due to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity) no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere.
    The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe.
    Here’s another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We’re looking at the light from stars that’s traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we’re seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened.
    But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It’s sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates.
    But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes.
    https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk

    In fact, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he, via his infamous ‘thought experiments’, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.

    Introduction to special relativity
    Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,,
    Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,,
    per wikipedia

    The happiest thought of my life.
    Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”:
    “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.”
    http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/.....ode85.html

    We will get back to observers being central in the universe in a little while, but before we do that, and to more firmly establish that the earth should be given a ‘privileged’ position in the universe, it is first necessary to point out that anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system.

    Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these recently discovered ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover, as the following paper highlights, we find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, “implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon”,,,

    A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies
    – Ashok K. Singal
    Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015)
    Abstract
    We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon?
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2

    And it is the large scale structures of the universe, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, which give us a very strong scientific reason to believe the earth should, once again, be considered to have a ‘privileged’, even central, position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    – illustration
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png
    – article
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    Moreover, due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57, we find that “These tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
    And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
    The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
    But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    Thus, (with the CMBR and the large scale structure of the universe combining to strongly indicate that the Earth is the ‘center of the universe’, and due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57), our best evidence from cosmology that we have thus far overturns the Copernican principle, and it even reveals teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the beginning of creation.

    Which is to say The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluctuation as atheists have erroneously presumed in their ‘rapid inflation’ models.

    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Job 38:4-5
    Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    On top of all that, and the further support my claim that ‘humans are NOT chemical scum”, in the following paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    ,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    ,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    Of related interest to that, we also find that we just happen to, “Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to be able to observe the Cosmic Background Radiation”

    We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to be able to observe the Cosmic Background Radiation – Hugh Ross – video (7:12 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/MxOGeqVOsvc?t=431

    To further solidify the fact that humans have far more significance in this universe than atheists have presupposed, (with their ‘chemical scum’ model ? ), in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”

    “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
    – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark
    The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe)
    https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715

    The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.

    The Scale of the Universe
    https://htwins.net/scale2/

    And while that finding by Dr. Neil Turok is certainly very interesting, it just gives life in general a ‘middle’ position in the universe, and still does not give humanity in particular, a ‘middle’ position in the universe.

    Yet, Dr. William Demski, (and company), in the following graph, have refined the estimate with better data, and have given us a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.

    Magnifying the Universe
    https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/

    And that more precise figure does indeed give humanity in particular a ‘middle’ position in the universe.

    Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.

    Now let’s get back to observers themselves being central in the universe.

    Whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe.

    As the following Wheeler’s Delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality – George Musser – Aug. 17, 2020
    Excerpt: Now, researchers in Australia and Taiwan offer perhaps the sharpest demonstration that Wigner’s paradox is real. In a study published this week in Nature Physics, they transform the thought experiment into a mathematical theorem that confirms the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the scenario. The team also tests the theorem with an experiment, using photons as proxies for the humans. Whereas Wigner believed resolving the paradox requires quantum mechanics to break down for large systems such as human observers, some of the new study’s authors believe something just as fundamental is on thin ice: objectivity. It could mean there is no such thing as an absolute fact, one that is as true for me as it is for you.
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality

    Because of such consistent, and repeatable. experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”

    “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.
    And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society.”
    Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html

    On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, (i.e. completely contrary to the atheistic belief that we are ‘chemical scum), in quantum mechanics we also find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.

    As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, (and one of the most scientifically honest atheists that I have personally ever run across), stated in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.

    Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.

    As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    Anton Zeilinger –
    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

    As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:

    Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014
    Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
    “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm

    And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the “freedom-of-choice” loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the researchers themselves, who are conducting the quantum experiments, are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining “freedom of choice” loophole in quantum mechanics, it is empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”

    As well, as should be needless to say, this is yet another VERY powerful line of empirical evidence that directly falsifies the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity since humans themselves are brought into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level, and therefore humans are empirically shown to have far, far, more significance, value, and dignity in this universe than atheists have presumed with their fallacious, (and depressing), ‘chemical scum’ model of humanity.

    As much as it may hurt atheists’s feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can tell us, we are not merely “chemical scum” as Hawking, via the Copernican Principle, tried to imply that we were.

    Hopefully atheists will get over the ‘sad fact’ that they are not merely chemical scum in short order. ?

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

  75. 75
    bornagain77 says:

    One final note in regards to overturning the atheistic notion that we are ‘chemical scum’.

    Although, as has been shown in this post, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (in a rather dramatic fashion), overturn the Copernican Principle, and return humanity back to centrality in the universe, (and in spite of that stunning correspondence between the two theories), General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics still simply refuse, mathematically, to be combined into a single overarching ‘theory of everything.

    And yet, by allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the “freedom of choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    Here is a recent video where I (try to) make that case

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

    And here are a few more notes regarding the Shroud of Turin that further support my claim

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

    The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    And of final note to Lakatos and Kuhn’s apparently heavy reliance on the ‘Copernican revolution’, (in order for them to develop their philosophical critiques of Popper’s ‘naive’ falsification model), since the Copernican principle is now, itself, shown to be empirically false, then, obviously, in so far as Lakatos and Kuhn have both relied on the Copernican revolution in order for them to develop their specific arguments against Popper’s falsification criteria, their arguments collapse in on themselves. (Which is not to say that their philosophical standards for science don’t have some merit, but it is just to say that their specific arguments against Popper in particular collapse in on themselves in so far as they relied on the Copernican model to do so)

    As I stated previously, “it is a bit of poetic justice for Popper that experimental falsification itself would have the final and last word in the entire debate” as to what constitutes a real science and as to what constitutes a pseudoscience.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  76. 76
    Bob O'H says:

    Wow, ba77. 4 long posts totally over 8000 words and you ignored my point. You haven’t provided any evidence that Kuhn and Lakatos were led (or lead) astray. You don’t even look at what either of them actually wrote.

  77. 77
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob, at post 68 I provided evidence that Lakatos and Kuhn both held tightly to the ‘Copernican revolution’ in developing their particular scientific philosophies. In posts 71 through 75 (which are 5 ‘long’ posts, not 4 posts as you claimed, and which tells me that you did not even bother to read the 5 posts), I laid out the empirical evidence for why the Copernican Principle is now falsified as a valid heuristic, i.e. guiding principle, in science.

    At the bottom of post 75, which you apparently did not even bother to read before commenting, and in summary, I stated that,,,,

    And of final note to Lakatos and Kuhn’s apparently heavy reliance on the ‘Copernican revolution’, (in order for them to develop their philosophical critiques of Popper’s ‘naive’ falsification model), since the Copernican principle is now, itself, shown to be empirically false, then, obviously, in so far as Lakatos and Kuhn have both relied on the Copernican revolution in order for them to develop their specific arguments against Popper’s falsification criteria, their arguments collapse in on themselves. (Which is not to say that their philosophical standards for science don’t have some merit, but it is just to say that their specific arguments against Popper in particular collapse in on themselves in so far as they relied on the Copernican model to do so)

    As I stated previously, “it is a bit of poetic justice for Popper that experimental falsification itself would have the final and last word in the entire debate” as to what constitutes a real science and as to what constitutes a pseudoscience.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  78. 78
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – you’re totally missing the point. You have shown that Kuhn and Lakatos used the Copernican revolution in their arguments, but you haven’t shown what their views on it were. You haven’t demonstrated that they were led astray. I didn’t read your 8000 words, I only skimmed through them to see what they said about Kuhn and Lakatos. As it was, essentially, nothing they failed to back up your argument about leading Kuhn and Lakatos astray, so I didn’t need to delve further.

    Now, can you present any evidence that showed what Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ opinions (and nobody else’s) were on the Copernican revolution? From that, can you then go on to explain how they were led astray?

  79. 79
    bornagain77 says:

    HUH? So are you holding that Kuhn and Lakatos may have held that the supposed ‘science’ and/or philosophy behind the Copernican revolution did not unseat the earth from any consideration of centrality in the universe, and was therefore somehow not a valid form of reasoning for them to use??

    Otherwise, your objection simply makes no sense. Of course they thought the supposed science and/or philosophy behind the Copernican revolution was a valid form of reasoning and used it, in large measure, to develop their own philosophies of science. .

    For crying out loud, Kuhn wrote a book on the subject in 1992, and Kuhn’s ‘ad hoc’ stories criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience smells an awful lot like the infamous ‘epicycles’,,,, Moreover Lakatos in 1978 directly stated, “I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science”,,,

    I don’t know about you, but that is certainly enough for me to see that they were both heavily, and negatively, influenced by the Copernican revolution.

    Anyways, (as I have shown in posts 71 thru 75), the Copernican principle is now shown to be false by numerous lines of empirical evidence, thus, to whatever extent they based their philosophical arguments on the “Copernican’ form of reasoning, (which I hold to be a large part, and which Lakatos himself admitted to being huge part of his basis of reasoning), their arguments against Popper’s criteria of falsification simply collapse in on themselves.

    It ain’t rocket science,,, (and you ain’t chemical scum no matter what Hawking may have said about you! 🙂 )

  80. 80
    Bob O'H says:

    So are you holding that Kuhn and Lakatos may have held that the supposed ‘science’ and/or philosophy behind the Copernican revolution did not unseat the earth from any consideration of centrality in the universe, and was therefore somehow not a valid form of reasoning for them to use??

    What? Do you really have so little clue about what we are discussing? We’re not discussing if “the Copernican revolution did not unseat the earth from any consideration of centrality in the universe”, we’re discussing how two people interpreted the process by which teh Copernican revolution came about.

    Once more, you are not providing any evidence to back up your claim that Kuhn and Lakatos were led astray.

    For crying out loud, Kuhn wrote a book on the subject in 1992, and Kuhn’s ‘ad hoc’ stories criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience smells an awful lot like the infamous ‘epicycles’,,,, Moreover Lakatos in 1978 directly stated, “I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science”,,,

    Both of those dates are wrong – i assume by the first you mean 1962. I don’t know what the correct date for the second should be, but if that’s what Lakatos stated it wouldn’t be 4 years after his death.

    It ain’t rocket science,,,

    No, but it does require research and reading what Kuhn and Lakatos actually wrote. Something you do not seem capable of doing to back up your claims about what Kuhn and Lakatos actually thought.

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Bob, the Copernican principle is wrong, the principle of experimental testing/falsification is what has (finally) shown it to be wrong (posts 71 thru 75),. yet Lakatos and Kuhn used the Copernican revolution, (in large measure), as a basis of reasoning for their philosophies (post 68),,, In so far as they did, they undermined their critiques against Popper.,,, Case closed!

    I’m sure that you, as a Darwinian. atheist, will object once again. However, I don’t care. I can’t force you to be reasonable.

    Sorry for the wrong dates,

    The dates came from these links, which I listed at post 68, (via a very quick google search,,, as I explained at post 68),,,

    The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought – Thomas S. Kuhn – 1992 (Revised edition)
    Excerpt of description: Mr. Kuhn displays the full scope of the Copernican Revolution as simultaneously an episode in the internal development of astronomy, a critical turning point in the evolution of scientific thought, and a crisis in Western man’s concept of his relation to the universe and to God.
    https://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary-Astronomy-Development/dp/0674171039

    Why did Copernicus’s research programme supersede Ptolemy’s?
    By Elie Zahar and Imre Lakatos – 1978
    Excerpt of Introduction: I first should like to offer an apology for imposing a philosophical talk upon you on the occasion of the quincentenary of Copernicus’s birth. My excuse is that a few years ago I suggested a specific method for using history of science as an arbiter of some authority when it comes to debates in philosophy of science and I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science.
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-methodology-of-scientific-research-programmes/why-did-copernicuss-research-programme-supersede-ptolemys/CBBBCA4E3CD03277CB460AE91C3D3320

    The first was a revised edition date, which explains why it is off, and the second date, I guess, was published posthumously.,,, Since Copernicus was born in 1473, I guess Lakatos must have given the talk in 1973. i.e. the “quincentenary of Copernicus’s birth”

  82. 82
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/81

    Whatever Bob, the Copernican principle is wrong, the principle of experimental testing/falsification is what has (finally) shown it to be wrong (posts 71 thru 75),. yet Lakatos and Kuhn used the Copernican revolution, (in large measure), as a basis of reasoning for their philosophies (post 68),,, In so far as they did, they undermined their critiques against Popper.,,, Case closed!

    Even if it were a well-established and uncontested fact that the presence of a conscious human observer is required for the wave-function to collapse – which it is not, it is still only one interpretation of QM.

    We have only become aware of the quantum world over the last 150 years, say. We have only been able to indirectly observe quantum phenomena for much less than that.

    Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. If we include ancestral forms, it’s about 6,000,000 years. The Universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old so for the overwhelming majority of its existence this Universe was apparently able to get along just fine without us observing it or being its centerpiece.

    In other words, the Copernican Principle is doing just fine, thank you.

    Case dismissed!

  83. 83
    Bob O'H says:

    yet Lakatos and Kuhn used the Copernican revolution, (in large measure), as a basis of reasoning for their philosophies (post 68),,, In so far as they did, they undermined their critiques against Popper.,,, Case closed!

    Regardless of how they used them. We’re back to Dawkins being a Christian because he references the Bible.

  84. 84
    Sandy says:

    for about 200,000 years.
    it’s about 6,000,000 years.
    to be 13.8 billion years old
    Case dismissed!

    :)) Can you prove the speed of light was always the same we observe today? Case dismissed!

  85. 85
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. If we include ancestral forms, it’s about 6,000,000 years.

    There isn’t any evidence that humans evolved from non-humans. There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of the feat. And there isn’t any way to objectively test the claim. You lose.

  86. 86
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob at 83, perhaps you should just stay away from trying to use metaphors. You example is gibberish.

  87. 87
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states, “Even if it were a well-established and uncontested fact that the presence of a conscious human observer is required for the wave-function to collapse – which it is not, it is still only one interpretation of QM.”

    Funny that Seversky never quite gets around to mentioning exactly which alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics he supports

    I can’t say that I blame him, all the alternative interpretations that I have seen atheistic materialists postulate, besides being incoherent, have been insane.

    For prime example of just how insane these ‘other interpretations’ can be, we have the atheist’s Many Worlds Interpretation.

    Many Worlds truly exposes reductive materialism in all its full blown absurdity. i.e. The material particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone observes a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle, (somehow magically), instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes with a virtual infinity of other people observing the same particle going in a virtual infinity of different directions

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,
    http://aeon.co/magazine/scienc.....a-fantasy/

    Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems – Philip Ball – October 18, 2018
    Excerpt: It, (The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics), says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable.
    Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/

    As Dr. Egnor noted, “the issue here (with MWI) isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric.”

    Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God – Michael Egnor – August 2, 2017
    Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic.
    The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less.
    Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,,
    What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky objects to the fact that the Copernican principle has been overturned thusly,

    Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. If we include ancestral forms, it’s about 6,000,000 years. The Universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old so for the overwhelming majority of its existence this Universe was apparently able to get along just fine without us observing it or being its centerpiece.
    In other words, the Copernican Principle is doing just fine, thank you.

    Yet, Seversky appealing to space-time to try to refute the undermining of the Copernican principle by quantum mechanics, is a bit like Seversky trying to claim that ‘the price of tea in china’ refutes quantum mechanics. The actions of Quantum Mechanics could care less about space-time.

    With apologies to LaPlace. quantum mechanics scoffs at the entire concept of space-time and sniffs, “Space-time???, I have no need of that hypothesis”,,,

    As Professor Crull states in the following article, “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”

    You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018
    Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,,
    Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,,
    The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.
    What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.
    https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time

    Of supplemental note:

    There is a very strong correlation between defining attributes of the immaterial mind and the actions that we are witnessing in quantum mechanics:

    How the mental attributes of ‘the experience of the now’ and of ‘free will’ strongly correlate with recent advances in quantum mechanics
    https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/michael-egnor-talks-with-podcaster-lucas-skrobot-about-how-we-can-know-we-are-not-zombies/#comment-706147

    Verse

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  89. 89
    William J Murray says:

    Recent experimentation has revealed that “wave collapse” vs “multiverse branching” to be a false dichotomy. It appears now that “wave collapse” only occurs for the observers in question, not everyone. The wave can be collapsed for one observer, and not collapsed for those “outside” of the observer’s knowledge.

    https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/

    This doesn’t support the “branching multiverse” or the “observer collapse” theory, because in both cases those involved would be able to reconcile their observations with each other.

    But, guess what theory predicts this result?

    Yep. My Idealism Reality Theory, which puts each observer at the center of their own experiential reality tapping into informational potential.

  90. 90
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @87,

    As Dr. Egnor noted, “the issue here (with MWI) isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric.”

    Thank you. Hits the nail on the head.

    The most heavily tested area of science is physics and the most heavily tested area in physics is quantum mechanics, which screams at researchers that determinism and materialism is dead. As dead as Monty Python’ s “Norwegian blue” parrot.

    But many people ignore the science or say they can’t see or hear the evidence. The simple reason is that they can’t see or hear what science is telling us is because they don’t want to see or hear. The reason that they don’t want to see or hear is because they love their sins.

    And when they stand before the God of the universe, they plan to use ignorance as their excuse: “I didn’t know that was wrong.”

    But see how that plays out:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB62oaOeqR0

    -Q

  91. 91
    William J Murray says:

    Q said:

    But many people ignore the science or say they can’t see or hear the evidence. The simple reason is that they can’t see or hear what science is telling us is because they don’t want to see or hear. The reason that they don’t want to see or hear is because they love their sins.

    I think it’s clear we all ignore some evidence, and/or sort it conveniently to our beliefs. Some of us are just willing to admit it.

    It’s easy to point the finger at the materialists/physicalists/atheists, but what about the Christian exclusivists, like BA77 and others that simply ignore the clear evidence against Christian afterlife exclusivity, or the evidence I linked to above that disproves the idea (the generally accepted one, anyway) of an “objective reality?”

  92. 92
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius,,,. Yes, Dr. Egnor does have a way to put things that cuts through a lot of the BS. I’ve really grown in my respect for Dr. Egnor over the years.

  93. 93
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, I hate to burst your bubble, but Bishop Berkeley, a Christian, beat you to idealism by a couple of hundred years

    George Berkeley, (born March 12, 1685, near Dysert Castle, near Thomastown?, County Kilkenny, Ireland—died January 14, 1753, Oxford, England), Anglo-Irish Anglican bishop, philosopher, and scientist best known for his empiricist and idealist philosophy, which holds that reality consists only of minds and their ideas;
    https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Berkeley

  94. 94
    William J Murray says:

    BA77,

    By “my” I mean the one I’m espousing here. I don’t claim to have invented idealism, but I have yet to see that anyone has explored the idea to the degree I have in terms of relating it to multiple lines of evidence, working out a model of information and experience, and the development of practical, experimental methods and techniques.

    Not saying it hasn’t happened, but if it is out there, I’m not aware of it.

  95. 95
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 86 – yes, I can well believe that your level of comprehension is so low you think the metaphor is gibberish.

  96. 96
    Querius says:

    William J Murray @91,

    I think it’s clear we all ignore some evidence, and/or sort it conveniently to our beliefs. Some of us are just willing to admit it.

    Yes, we all do this to an extent. Sometimes rejection of a conclusion is due to preconceptions, scientific consensus, fear of ridicule, ulterior motives, ideological poisoning, and many other reasons. I’m sure that’s why a frustrated Max Planck once stated, “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”

    Similarly, people who think of themselves as Christians base their belief on different reasons, not all of which are spiritually valid.

    For example, it’s been said that the life, teachings, death, and apparent resurrection of Yeshua of Nazareth was reinterpreted by the Greeks as a philosophy, the Romans as a system, Europeans as a culture, and Americans as a business.

    As a Christian, my faith rests on four pillars:
    1. Peace and Joy. A seemingly inexplicable and profound peace, joy, and love that fills and overflows my life daily. Based on the assurance that my sins have been forgiven by my accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior, this joy is maintained by the Holy Spirit embracing my spirit. The underlying joy is there even during times of duress. I’d also include the encouragement of occasional miraculous outcomes or events (a few of which I personally witnessed), but these exist in memory and fade in day-to-day life. I also recognize this same peace and joy in other authentic Christians, who are loving, trustworthy, and generous. I’m honored to embrace them as my brothers and sisters in the faith, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, politics, or personal background.

    2. The Word of God. I’ve found deep wisdom, guidance, encouragement, revelation, and maturity that comes from studying the Word of God: asking questions, making observations, deriving trustworthy principles, and then finding them engraved onto my life by the working of the Holy Spirit, often through suffering. This interaction with the Word has profoundly shaped my character.

    3. History. There are golden “chains of trust,” including eye-witness testimony, profoundly changed lives, personal sacrifice, and faithfulness even to martyrdom that trace paths through everything nasty that the world can throw at it—severe persecution, religious corruption, and innumerable charlatans. The links in these chains of trust extend back from me through generations of faithful men and women to the wonderful, miraculous events in the early church, and then to Jesus Christ himself, the Son of God who revealed himself by his repeatedly doing things that only God can do. As some of my brother and sister believers in India have expressed it, Jesus is the one and only Avatar of God. Thus, the events around the life of Jesus had enormous impact on the world, and there are a number of surviving historical references including hostile corroboration preserved both in the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmud.

    4. Fulfilled Prophecies. A multitude of improbable prophecies regarding the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus, including where he would be born (Bethlehem), that he would be killed and how he would die (they pierced my hands and my feet), and that his death would be soon followed by the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (which happened 40 years later in 70 C.E.). Additional prophecies tell us that Israel would improbably be formed again from the diaspora, that Jesus will return at an unexpected time to gather us to him, followed by great natural disasters—global warming, an asteroid strike on the ocean, etc.—and the judgment of those angels and people who are wickedly hostile to God, who will “destroy those who destroy the earth” as is stated in the book of Revelation.

    There’s nothing here on earth that compares with the attraction of God’s immense love and purpose–that God experienced torture and physical death for our forgiveness if we’re willing to accept his gift of eternal life!

    So, let me strongly assure you that my trust and that of Bornagain77 and several others here is not merely an opinion or a cultural norm or sitting through formalistic, boring religious events.

    -Q

  97. 97
    Jack says:

    Querius: spiritually valid

    What do you mean by that?

  98. 98
    William J Murray says:

    Q said:

    So, let me strongly assure you that my trust and that of Bornagain77 and several others here is not merely an opinion or a cultural norm or sitting through formalistic, boring religious events.

    I’m sure you know that I’ve never implied otherwise. Nor do I believe otherwise. As I have said before, there is no doubt in my mind that you and BA77, et al, will arrive at the very destination you seek, and that knowledge only adds to my joy and happiness.

  99. 99
    Querius says:

    Jack,

    That’s a very astute and important question!

    Here’s what Jesus taught:

    Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ – Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV)

    In context with Christianity, what I mean by “spiritually valid” is based on the actual teachings of Jesus as recorded by the people directly involved with him. I would summarize his teachings like this:

    Jesus taught his followers that no one can follow religious rules perfectly nor can they do nearly enough good deeds to earn forgiveness for past misdeeds. He taught them that they should turn away from being selfish, self-righteous, and immoral. Instead of trying to justify their past, they should ask God to forgive them. Jesus taught that he came to save people from being judged by God and that his death on the cross would be the payment for all their wrongdoing. As a result of putting their trust in him alone and being grateful, his authentic followers will grow to become people who are gentle, generous, humble, loving, and forgiving.

    Thus, when you see attitudes and behaviors that significantly differ from this description, you can know that you’re not seeing authentic Christianity, but a religion like any other religion or no religion at all.

    I would also add that there are many counterfeits to authentic Christianity. In general, they try to focus people on religious rituals, new revelations, political power, or a religious celebrity. Con artists introduce additional requirements, promote strange teachings, or try to use Christianity to make themselves wealthy. Jesus warned his followers that many such false teachers would appear.

    Hope this helps.

    -Q

  100. 100
    Querius says:

    William J Murray @98,

    I’m happy that you’re happy, but I’m also concerned about what I think you believe.

    In Idealism, you think there might be hope for a relativistic personal reality (or some nuance of that general idea).

    The Bible, in fact, provides a few hints that what we perceive as reality is not the true reality. It seems like we’re in an artificial reality in which people reveal themselves for what they truly are. How we use our free will in this artificial reality determines our ultimate destiny.

    Unfortunately, we’ve all failed by almost any standard, have become estranged from our Creator, and will end up in the garbage dump called “the lake of fire.” This lake of fire was originally prepared for Lucifer and his angels, who currently rule this world and who have caused and continue to cause profound human suffering and death, and who are also killing our planet.

    To escape this “second death,” God created a way out that I’ve described. While Idealism is strongly suggested by quantum mechanics, we’re not the only sentient entities interacting in this artificial environment.

    I hope you think about this seriously.

    -Q

  101. 101
    Jack says:

    Are we allowed to discuss the Bible, Christian theology and apologetics (pro and con) in this thread?

  102. 102
    Querius says:

    Jack,

    Yes, when it’s relevant to the direction of the thread (which has been drifting a bit). In my posts, I was primarily responding to William J Murray’s post where he asserted:

    It’s easy to point the finger at the materialists/physicalists/atheists, but what about the Christian exclusivists, like BA77 and others that simply ignore the clear evidence against Christian afterlife exclusivity, or the evidence I linked to above that disproves the idea (the generally accepted one, anyway) of an “objective reality?”

    As a Christian, I’d want to be able to demonstrate that I’m not “ignoring” anything, but have rational support–the four pillars of my faith including reasonable evidence for my faith–and that it’s not some some of “leap in the dark” based on nothing.

    -Q

  103. 103
    Jack says:

    Querius,

    Are you aligned/attached/committed to any particular Christian church/organization?

  104. 104
    bornagain77 says:

    At 95 Bob states, “I can well believe that your level of comprehension is so low you think the metaphor is gibberish.”

    Bob, well I do hope, (despite my apparently extremely low level of comprehension of what you are actually trying to say), that you charitably find it within yourself to stick with me anyway. At least long enough so that one day I might be as wise as you are and be able to comprehend how it is not completely and utterly insane to believe, like you do, that the human body, “composed of trillions of microscopic interactive components”, can be an accident.

    “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    – Jay Homnick – 2005 American Spectator

    One Body – animation – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

    The Designed Body: Irreducible Complexity on Steroids = Exquisite Engineering
    – Steve Laufmann – March 8, 2017
    Excerpt: The series by Dr. Glicksman discusses 40 interrelated chemical and physiological parameters that the human body must carefully balance to sustain life. The body deploys amazing, interconnected solutions to manage them.
    The parameters are: (1) oxygen, (2) carbon dioxide, (3) hydrogen ion, (4) water, (5) sodium, (6) potassium, (7) glucose, (8) calcium, (9) iron, (10) ammonia, (11) albumin transport, (12) proteins, (13) insulin, (14) glucagon, (15) thyroid hormone, (16) cortisol, (17) testosterone, (18) estrogen, (19) aldosterone, (20) parathormone, (21) digestive enzymes, (22) bile, (23) red blood cells, (24) white blood cells, (25) platelets, (26) clotting factors, (27) anti-clotting factors, (28) complement, (29) antibodies, (30) temperature, (31) heart rate, (32) respiratory rate, (33) blood pressure, (34) lung volume, (35) airway velocity, (36) cardiac output, (37) liver function, (38) kidney function, (39) hypothalamic function, (40) nerve impulse velocity.,,,
    For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. This is exactly what we see with all complex engineered systems. In fact, this is a defining characteristic of engineered systems.
    With humans, the whole is also quite remarkable in its own right. It’s almost as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music.
    The human body enables these things, but does not determine them. As near as we can tell, no combination of the body’s substrate — information, machinery, or operations — alone can achieve these things.
    Yet it’s exactly these things that make human life worth living. These are essential to our human experience. Human life involves so much more than merely being alive.
    This simple observation flies in the face of Darwinian expectations. How can bottom-up, random processes possibly achieve such exquisitely engineered outcomes — outcomes that deliver a life experience well beyond the chemistry and physics of the body?
    http://evolutionnews.org/2017/.....-steroids/

    Verses:

    Psalm 139:13-14
    For You formed my inward parts;
    You covered me in my mother’s womb.
    I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Marvelous are Your works,
    And that my soul knows very well.

    Romans 1:22-25
    Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

  105. 105
    William J Murray says:

    Q said:

    I hope you think about this seriously.

    I’ve thought about these things seriously for over 50 years because my experiences since I was 8 yrs old demanded I think about these things seriously.

    I realize that because your perspective involves multi-layered existential exclusivity, there are things you categorically cannot believe about me and my experiences, and nothing I say could possibly convince you, BA77, KF et al otherwise. Because of your beliefs, you necessarily must consider me in a certain light; you (and those like you) must characterize me, my efforts and my experiences in your mind in a certain way to satisfy the existential necessities of your ontological commitments.

    And that’s fine; it just puts parameters up about the kinds of conversations I can have with people like you, BA77, KF, et al; it can never be a mutual exchange or exploration of these kinds of ideas because of the exclusivity conditions of your ontology. You will always be trying to convince others their differing views and experiences are defective or deceptive in some way, and you will always be promoting your own perspective because you see it as the difference between what “eternal destination” I (or anyone) will find myself in after this life.

  106. 106
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM states,

    It’s easy to point the finger at the materialists/physicalists/atheists, but what about the Christian exclusivists, like BA77 and others that simply ignore the clear evidence against Christian afterlife exclusivity, or the evidence I linked to above that disproves the idea (the generally accepted one, anyway) of an “objective reality?”

    Apparently WJM has taken his belief that we each can construct our own ‘alternate realities’, (i.e. relativistic idealism), way too far.

    WJM claimed that “I have yet to see that anyone has explored the idea (of idealism) to the degree I have”.

    Yet that is simply not true. WJM’s name is nowhere to be found on the list of prominent contemporary philosophers who have explored and defended Idealism. Apparenly, WJM needs to inform the editors of wikipedia of just how important, profound, and unique his insights into Idealism are.

    Idealism
    Excerpt: There are various philosophers working in contemporary Western philosophy of mind who have recently defended an idealist stance. These include:
    Nicholas Rescher
    Howard Robinson
    John McDowell — Mind and World (1996)
    Vittorio Hösle — Objective Idealism, Ethics and Politics (1998)
    John Leslie — Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology (2002).
    John Foster — A World for Us (2008), coming from a traditional Christian theological perspective.
    Timothy Sprigge — A Defense of Absolute Idealism (1984).
    David Pearce — Non-Materialist Physicalism: An experimentally testable conjecture (2014)
    Bernardo Kastrup — The Idea of the World (2018)
    Donald D. Hoffman — The Case Against Reality (2019)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#Contemporary_idealists

    The truth is that WJM ideas are not all that unique and that he ‘borrows’ experimental evidence from quantum mechanics and tries to claim that it exclusively supports his ‘relativistic idealism’. Yet the experimental evidence is compatible with all theistic worldviews which hold the Mind of God to be the source and foundation of all of reality, and the experimental evidence is certainly not exclusive to WJM ‘relativistic idealism’

    For instance, the Wigner’s friend experiment, that WJM is fond of citing, is certainly not exclusive to his form of ‘relativistic idealism’, but the experiment is also, (certainly), compatible with all Theistic worldviews which hold that God holds each of us, individually, accountable.

    Romans 14:12
    So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

    Moreover, I have yet to see any researcher in quantum mechanics, such as Anton Zeilinger, ever cite WJM’s postulations and conjectures about ‘relativistic Idealism’ as an inspiration for any of the experiments that they have conducted.

    If I am wrong, WJM is free to show me exactly where any experimentalist has ever cited him as an inspiration for any of his experiments.

  107. 107
    William J Murray says:

    What WJM said:

    WJM claimed that “I have yet to see that anyone has explored the idea (of idealism) to the degree I have”.

    What BA77 said in response:

    Yet that is simply not true.

    What is “not true,” BA77? I said “I have yet to see…” I didn’t say it hadn’t happened. In fact, I said later in that same comment: Not saying it hasn’t happened, but if it is out there, I’m not aware of it.

    It is entirely true that I have not as yet seen it, and was unaware of it. How would BA77 know otherwise?

    BA77 then goes off on some weird tangent as if I ever claimed to be published, cited or recognized in the field of idealism theory. I did not make any such claim.

    For instance, the Wigner’s friend experiment, that WJM is fond of citing, is certainly not exclusive to his form of ‘relativistic idealism’, but the experiment is also, (certainly), compatible with all Theistic worldviews which hold that God holds each of us, individually, accountable.

    Uh … what are you talking about? This is what I said about the evidence I linked to:

    This doesn’t support the “branching multiverse” or the “observer collapse” theory, because in both cases those involved would be able to reconcile their observations with each other.

    Where did I say anything about it not being “compatible” with theistic worldviews?

  108. 108
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, asks “Where did I say anything about it not being “compatible” with theistic worldviews?”

    So you are not claiming any empirical evidence whatsoever that would differentiate your ‘idealistic relativism’ (which, as far as you know, you have developed far beyond anyone else), as being superior to Theism in general and to Judeo-Christian Theism in particular?

    Then I am sorry for taking your following comment here as anything more than unwarranted hype and bravado of your own ‘relativistic idealism’ worldview.

    (WJM referenced the Wigner’s friend Experiment and then he stated)
    But, guess what theory predicts this result?
    Yep. My Idealism Reality Theory, which puts each observer at the center of their own experiential reality tapping into informational potential.

    So if not experimental evidence, exactly what is suppose to persuade anyone that your worldview is superior to Theism in general or Christianity in particular?

    At least I, as a Christian, can point to the resurrection, i.e. Jesus’ victory over sin and death, so as to differentiate Christianity as being vastly superior to your worldview, or to any other worldview.

    What does your worldview, or any other worldview, possibly have to offer in comparison to Jesus’ victory over death? I mean really! How can you possibly guarantee me, or anyone else, eternal life, as Jesus has guaranteed us eternal life, through His victory over death?

    The comparisons are not even close!

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    Music: Dolly Parton – He’s Alive
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DQfthEHVc4

  109. 109
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @108,

    William J Murray confusing his wishful thinking with powerful historical facts that survived multiple genocides, powerful testimonies, provinanced faith (what I call “golden chains of trust”), life-changing wisdom, and profound personal experiences by labeling these as “exclusivity.”

    He should try accusing a judge of exclusivity in a court of law or accusing a professor of exclusivity in marking a mid-term exam question wrong. I’m afraid it won’t turn out well.

    In his celebrations about the results of the experiments in quantum mechanics that destroyed materialism and determinism, he’s forgetting that the Originator of all information and its manifestations in the universe is also observing the universe and us with it. And there is purpose, mercy, and perfect justice in His actions.

    In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. -John 1:1-5 (ESV)

    We were made in His image, with free will, morality, and creativity. He gave His creation freedom. But a powerful created being, called Lucifer, chose to “be like God,” infected humanity with rebellion against the Creator and is now, temporarily, the ruler of the earth and the originator of all evil and suffering. To provide a just and legal way out for humanity, the Creator wrapped Himself in a human body and allowed himself to be tortured to death on our behalf, offering us a choice.

    But William J Murray calls this choice “exclusivity” since he’s chosen to reject the words of Jesus, God in the flesh, when Jesus said

    “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” -John 14:6 (ESV)

    -Q

  110. 110
    Jack says:

    Querius

    See @103

  111. 111
    Querius says:

    Jack @110,

    Sorry, I missed 103. No, I’m a “freelance” Christian who simply takes seriously what’s written in the Bible. I’m curious about why you ask.

    -Q

  112. 112
    Jack says:

    Querius: I’m curious about why you ask.

    Context

  113. 113
    Jack says:

    BA77, you’re entirely too uptight. Relax, man. And while you’re at it, look at what you write and see if you can count all the stated and unstated assumptions you make while you browbeat WJM with your righteous anger. Maybe you should stick to the science quotes.

  114. 114
    bornagain77 says:

    Jack states, “you’re entirely too uptight.”

    No I’m not. Actually I’m pretty laid back.

    As to the assumptions I am making about WJM, It might interest you to know that WJM and I have been interacting for over a decade now, So a lot of what we may or may not say doesn’t necessarily have to be explicitly spelled out. We have a pretty good handle on each others position.

    As to me calling WJM on his claim, i.e. ‘browbeating’ as you put it, I think that WJM, at the very least, implied much more than he had a right to imply as far as the science was concerned, though he did, (as he pointed out to me) walk it back,,,. Moreover, WJM is certainly not alone in my “browbeating”. I honestly admit that I am often a stickler, even a pain in the rear-end, when (I think) someone is making claims that go contrary to the science in hand, or that go beyond the science in hand. In fact, I’ve called Bob O’H on making false scientific claims in this very thread. I call Darwinists on making false scientific claims all the time. Shoot, that is practically all I do when I interact with Darwinists, (like Seversky and Bob), since making false scientific claims is practically all they do.

    I’ve been doing it that way for years, and I really don’t plan on changing. (at least as long as Darwinists keep making false scientific claims,,,, (which could continue for a long time)

    I admit that manners-wise, I am often very rough around the edges, but I guess that’s the price you pay when you’ve been dealing with dogmatic Darwinists as long as I have been. Sorry you don’t like it. but oh well,,,

  115. 115
    Querius says:

    Jack @112,

    Context

    Satisfied?

    -Q

  116. 116
    Sandy says:

    Jack
    BA77, you’re entirely too uptight. Relax, man. And while you’re at it, look at what you write and see if you can count all the stated and unstated assumptions you make while you browbeat WJM with your righteous anger. Maybe you should stick to the science quotes.

    Jack relax man when you compare a Christian worldview with WJM view you need to read more books. Books not cartoon magazines.

    I’m a “freelance” Christian who simply takes seriously what’s written in the Bible.

    You are not Christian.
    “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained”.

    You need one of Apostles Descendants that received ordination in succession from Apostles .

  117. 117
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    So you are not claiming any empirical evidence whatsoever that would differentiate your ‘idealistic relativism’ (which, as far as you know, you have developed far beyond anyone else), as being superior to Theism in general and to Judeo-Christian Theism in particular?

    The empirical, scientific evidence I linked to clearly supports my IRT, and clearly does not support other quantum theory models that insist that the state of the observed is reconciled between observers. I don’t know what various theistic models have to say about it.

    The only aspect of any theistic model that this evidence might undermine is, as I said, the exclusivity aspect of those models. This evidence correlates with the non-Christian NDE evidence. I’m sure there are arguments one could make that would explain that particular evidence in terms of a particular theism (for instance, the ground of being argument still stands unaffected,) but I haven’t heard/read them yet, or if I have I either didn’t understand it as such or I don’t remember them.

    What does your worldview, or any other worldview, possibly have to offer in comparison to Jesus’ victory over death? I mean really! How can you possibly guarantee me, or anyone else, eternal life, as Jesus has guaranteed us eternal life, through His victory over death?

    First, I have no desire to pry you from your beliefs. That said, if you ask, I will answer your questions.

    I’ve read testimonial evidence of first-hand experiences that stretches back hundreds if not thousands of years from various cultures; the scientific evidence that began under William Crooks in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s and continues in several forms today, which represents a mountain of evidence that everyone is an eternal being and that our experiences here represent only a tiny segment of our larger experience as eternal beings. Did you know that after William Crookes investigation into the afterlife, several researchers/scientists duplicated or examined his investigations and came to the same conclusion: that the afterlife had been proven scientifically?

    Personally, I have visited with my dead wife several times. I personally know scores of people that have visited the dead in the afterlife, some on an continuing, consistent basis spanning decades. There is ongoing scientific research being conducted that has achieved technological communication with the dead on an ongoing basis. Teams of engineers, scientists, software developers, etc. are currently working with teams of the same in what we call the afterlife to make communication and interaction easier and available to everyone.

    The information we get from the “dead” and from those here that visit the afterlife is consistent: what we call “the afterlife” is really just life. Our lives here are something we decide to experience for various reasons. This is just another experiential “realm” in a functionally infinite diversity of experiential realms, some paradisaical, some normal, some not so great, some very different from our range of experiences here.

    I don’t point to all that evidence to change your views, but you asked. I expect we will all continue to believe that which we find the most fulfilling and meaningful in our lives regardless of the evidence. I admit that I do this. The arguments I make about IRT are logic and evidence-based, but even if someone were to dismantle it by evidence and argument and I admit that they have, that will not change my personal beliefs one bit, because my personal beliefs afford me such satisfaction, fulfillment, joy and love that there is not even a chance I can be pried from them.

    I suspect you feel the same way about your beliefs, and I am nothing but happy for you that your beliefs provide that for you.

  118. 118
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 said:

    I admit that manners-wise, I am often very rough around the edges,

    I admit the same for myself. I don’t take any of this personally; we’re talking about some very emotionally charged issues. I understand and accept that there are going to be a lot of “rough edges” when these kinds of things are discussed.

    I think we can both agree on this: regardless of what my fate is, and though we may disagree on that, we agree that in your future, you will die and go to Heaven (if I understand your views correctly.) We can both rejoice about that.

  119. 119
    William J Murray says:

    Q @109,

    As I said, I realize that your views require that you see me in a certain light, IOW you must characterize me and what I do a certain way to “fit in” with your beliefs. There really isn’t much I can do about that, except to say: that’s fine. I don’t take it personally (or at least I do my best not to!) We can still engage in civil discussion if you wish.

  120. 120
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM states: “The only aspect of any theistic model that this evidence might undermine is, as I said, the exclusivity aspect of those models.”

    To put it simply, you are reading tea leaves, and acting as if the scientific evidence, ever so slightly, supports your worldview over Christianity. It doesn’t. Not in the least!

    Moreover, the NDE evidence, from the links you yourself provided to me, (one from Greyson I believe), is far more antagonistic to your worldview than you imagine it to be. i.e. from your citations of foreign NDEs, I found no tunnels to a higher heavenly dimension, and no mention of encounters with almighty God, the Creator of heaven and earth..

    For instance, this ‘typical’ Judeo Christian NDE testimony of encountering God while being deceased for a short while.,

    “The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like “love” make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never.”
    – Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony
    https://www.iands.org/research/nde-research/nde-archives31/newest-accounts/736-never-wanted-to-leave-the-presence.html

    Again, as I stated before, that is not a minor discrepancy between foreign NDEs and the NDEs found in Judeo-Christian cultures. i.e. Bugattis compared to Yugos!

  121. 121
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 @120,

    The evidence is what it is, it’s up for the individual to decide how best to evaluate and interpret it. I can’t help how you decide to see me.

  122. 122
    Querius says:

    William J Murray,

    How I, some random dude, regard you has no relevance to your eternal destiny, nor do I personally feel compelled to characterize you in any certain way. It also doesn’t matter what rationale you use albeit with 50 years of introspection and research.

    Similarly, we’re pretty much all resigned to physical death, regardless of how rational or poetic we frame it, regardless of how long we’ve thought about it. It remains a certainty regardless of quantum mechanics, measurement, entanglement, hiding in a box with Schrödinger’s cat, our philosophies, and so on. There’s no naturalistic or idealistic way out.

    But there is a well-documented singular figure in history, who was amazingly prophesied to appear at a certain time and place with a specific mission “to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness . . .” And one of these prophecies indicates a period of time after which Messiah would appear, then be killed, and followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which most certainly occurred in 70 C.E.

    This figure came and performed miracles that only God could do. He clearly stated that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him.

    Again, the inevitability of death is independent of your perspective or mine. This and many other truths are not a form of exclusivity but of inclusivity. The wages of our sin is death, but the free gift of God to anyone who chooses it, is forgiveness and eternal life.

    -Q

  123. 123
    William J Murray says:

    This figure came and performed miracles that only God could do.

    And exactly how would you make this case? Note: I’m not challenging that those miracles occurred, I’m only interested in how the occurrence of those miracles indicate that God is the only one that could perform those miracles, or make them happen.

Leave a Reply