UD PRO-DARWINISM ESSAY CHALLENGE

While I'm guessing KF will delete this as well…

CR: Do the words found in John 1:1 have *no* meaning for you at all? SB: They have a great deal of meaning for me, but they have nothing at all to do with a well-warranted, empirically grounded scientific explanation.

If the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations was "with God" and "was God" in the beginning then no theory could explain how that knowledge was created . . . __________ Here CR IS WILLFULLY DEFIANT. He knows there is a significant matter of his insistence on slander on the table, but wants to carry on with debate points as though nothing has happened that requires retraction and apology on his part; meanwhile proceeding to further poison the atmosphere by asserting or implying that the pivotal issue at stake is Christian theology rather than empirical science. All of this is of course loaded with the design theory is Creationism and right wing theocratic agendas in a cheap tuxedo, Barbara Forrest/NCSE/ACLU etc smear which he has been pushing. (To correct such, I suggest the onlooker look at the Weak Argument Correctives here on, here and here. Also, it should be evident that if there are empirically warranted reliable signs of design, such as FSCO/I -- which there are -- then something marked by such signs would point to design, period. Indeed, "In the beginning was the Word" -- rational, communicating intelligence -- points to just that, if anything. I assure you that had the world of life not turned out to have an informational foundation, this risky prediction of the aged apostle John would have long since been pounced on as a proof that the Christian faith its nonsense and is empirically unsupported. But of course, we now know that deep in the heart of life is coded, complex, specifically functional, purposeful information. Any reasonable person would agree that the risky prediction here has some empirical support in ways John speaking in his own strength could never have anticipated; and in fact, we would see there something very simple to follow, that information/knowledge expressed informationally traces to mind as source, something we know from our own experience. But to the ilk of CR, this must be twisted into something else, something poisonous and dismissive.) I have left enough to show the problem and will remove further commentary from this unfortunately insistently disruptive and slanderous person. KFcritical rationalist

October 6, 2012

October

10

Oct

6

06

2012

12:39 PM

12

12

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Again, would you agree or disagree that explanations are better than others if they explain more phenomena than their rivals? Your dismissal of my criticism suggests your answer is “no”, as ID does not provide an explanation, while Darwinism does.

The answer to your question is, indeed, no. Darwinism purports to explain a great many things, but there is no reason to believe that explanation. A good explanation is, at a minimum, a credible explanation for which there is at least some evidence--not one that just makes a lot of claims. It if explains more phenomena, so much the better.

Do the words found in John 1:1 have *no* meaning for you at all?

They have a great deal of meaning for me, but they have nothing at all to do with a well-warranted, empirically grounded scientific explanation.

Is it irrelevant as to whether you think this knowledge needs to be explained or couldn’t be explained by any theory – therefore have no impact on whether you think one theory is better than another?

If I was an administrator, I would offer a free book to anyone who could extract meaning from that sentence. Meanwhile, I will issue a challenge much less daunting than the one KF has presented. Give me one good reason to believe that unguided, naturalistic forces can, or ever did, create a new body plan.StephenB

October 6, 2012

October

10

Oct

6

06

2012

11:19 AM

11

11

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CR knows or should know that I am dead serious. KFkairosfocus

October 6, 2012

October

10

Oct

6

06

2012

10:42 AM

10

10

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Ditto. KFcritical rationalist

October 6, 2012

October

10

Oct

6

06

2012

10:25 AM

10

10

25

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

You were warned, repeatedly, and ignored it; also refusing to resolve the problem. KFcritical rationalist

October 6, 2012

October

10

Oct

6

06

2012

10:03 AM

10

10

03

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: It is worth clipping Wiki on human origins and the origin of the human mind in particular:

human evo: >> Human evolution refers to the evolutionary process leading up to the appearance of modern humans. While it began with the last common ancestor of all life, the topic usually only covers the evolutionary history of primates, in particular the genus Homo, and the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of hominids (or "great apes") . . . . Primate evolution likely began in the late Cretaceous period. According to genetic studies [--> we already saw the built-in circularity of arguments on resemblance; there is a want of capacity to distinguish common descent by blind watchmaker CV + DRS [diff'tl reprod success] --> DWU(I)M [descent with unlimited (incremental) modification]from design using common elements, and there is no good empirical warrant that FSCO/I for life forms can be and was in fact developed thusly on a branching tree pattern; cf Gould on the actual fossil record] , divergence of primates from other mammals began 85 million years ago and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.[2] The family Hominidae, or Great Apes, diverged from the Hylobatidae (Gibbon) family 15 to 20 million years ago, and around 14 million years ago, the Ponginae (orangutans), diverged from the Hominidae family.[3] Bipedalism is the basic adaption of the Hominin line, and the earliest bipedal Hominini is considered to be either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin, with Ardipithecus, a full bipedal, coming somewhat later. The gorilla and chimpanzee diverged around the same time, and either Sahelanthropus or Orrorin may be our last shared ancestor with them. The early bipedals eventually evolved into the Australopithecines and later the genus Homo. The earliest documented [--> as in in the literature not on the ground] members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early homininas were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee. During the next million years a process of encephalization began, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled to 850cc.[4] Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. It is believed that these species were the first to use fire and complex tools. According to the Recent African Ancestry theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis and migrated out of the continent some 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing local populations of Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis.[5][6][7][8][9] Archaic Homo sapiens, the forerunner of anatomically modern humans, evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago[10][11]. Recent DNA evidence suggests that several haplotypes of Neanderthal origin are present among all non-African populations, and Neanderthals and other hominids, such as Denisova hominin may have contributed up to 6% of their genome to present-day humans.[12][13][14] Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago.[15] The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many[16] although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.[17] . . . >> evo origin of the mind: >> The evolution of human intelligence refers to a set of theories that attempt to explain how human intelligence has evolved. The question is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain, and to the emergence of human language. The timeline of human evolution spans some 7 million years, from the separation of the Pan genus until the emergence of behavioral modernity by 50,000 years ago. Of this timeline, the first 3 million years concern Sahelanthropus, the following 2 million concern Australopithecus, while the final 2 million span the history of actual human species (the Paleolithic). Many traits of human intelligence, such as empathy, theory of mind, mourning, ritual, and the use of symbols and tools, are already apparent in great apes although in lesser sophistication than in humans. There is a debate between supporters of the idea of a sudden emergence of intelligence, or "Great leap forward" and those of a gradual or continuum hypothesis. Theories of the evolution of intelligence include: Robin Dunbar's social brain hypothesis[46] Geoffrey Miller's sexual selection hypothesis[47] The ecological dominance-social competition (EDSC)[48] explained by Mark V. Flinn, David C. Geary and Carol V. Ward based mainly on work by Richard D. Alexander. The idea of intelligence as a signal of good health and resistance to disease. The Group selection theory contends that organism characteristics that provide benefits to a group (clan, tribe, or larger population) can evolve despite individual disadvantages such as those cited above. The idea that intelligence is connected with nutrition, and thereby with status[49] A higher IQ could be a signal that an individual comes from and lives in a physical and social environment where nutrition levels are high, and vice versa. >> brain evo: >> In the course of evolution of the Homininae, the human brain has grown in volume from about 600 cc in Homo habilis to about 1500 cc in Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Subsequently, there has been a shrinking over the past 28,000 years. The male brain has decreased from 1,500 cc to 1,350 cc while the female brain has shrunk by the same relative proportion.[citation needed] For comparison, Homo erectus, a relative of humans, had a brain size of 1,100 cc. However, the little Homo floresiensis, with a brain size of 380 cc, a third of that of their proposed ancestor H. erectus, used fire, hunted, and made stone tools at least as sophisticated as those of H. erectus.[20] "As large as you need and as small as you can" has been said to summarize the opposite evolutionary constraints on human brain size.[21][22] Studies tend to indicate small to moderate correlations (averaging around 0.3 to 0.4) between brain volume and IQ. The most consistent associations are observed within the frontal, temporal, and parietal lobes, the hippocampi, and the cerebellum, but these only account for a relatively small amount of variance in IQ, which itself has only a partial relationship to general intelligence and real-world performance.[23][24][full citation needed] Demographic studies have indicated that in humans, fertility and intelligence tend to be negatively correlated—that is to say, the more intelligent, as measured by IQ, exhibit a lower total fertility rate than the less intelligent. The present rate of decline is predicted to be 1.34 IQ points per decade.[25] >> language evo: >> there is considerable speculation about the language capabilities of early Homo (2.5 to 0.8 million years ago). Anatomically, some scholars believe features of bipedalism, which developed in australopithecines around 3.5 million years ago, would have brought changes to the skull, allowing for a more L-shaped vocal tract. The shape of the tract and a larynx positioned relatively low in the neck are necessary prerequisites for many of the sounds humans make, particularly vowels. Other scholars believe that, based on the position of the larynx, not even Neanderthals had the anatomy necessary to produce the full range of sounds modern humans make.[120][121] Still another view considers the lowering of the larynx as irrelevant to the development of speech.[122] The term proto-language, as defined by linguist Derek Bickerton, is a primitive form of communication lacking: a fully developed syntax tense, aspect, auxiliary verbs, etc. a closed-class (i.e. non-lexical) vocabulary That is, a stage in the evolution of language somewhere between great ape language and fully developed modern human language. Bickerton (2009) places the first emergence of such a proto-language with the earliest appearance of Homo, and associates its appearance with the pressure of behavioral adaptation to the niche construction of scavenging faced by Homo habilis.[123] Anatomical features such as the L-shaped vocal tract have been continuously evolving, as opposed to appearing suddenly.[124] Hence it is most likely that Homo habilis and Homo erectus during the Lower Pleistocene had some form of communication intermediate between that of modern humans and that of other primates.[125] >>

It should be obvious that after a certain point it is implicit that this is how things were, period. So, explanations are put together in the context of the blind watchmaker thesis, rather than being seen as requiring adequate, separate warrant when significant in import. However, as IOSE summarises (with an audiotape there too), origin of the knowing, reasoning mind is a critical breakdown point for naturalistic theories of human origins, due to an underlying self-referential incoherence:

13 --> Some materialists go further and suggest that mind is more or less a delusion. For instance, Sir Francis Crick is on record, in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis: . . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing. 14 --> Philip Johnson has replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: "I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Johnson then acidly commented: “[[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [[Reason in the Balance, 1995.] 15 --> In short, it is at least arguable that self-referential absurdity is the dagger pointing to the heart of evolutionary materialistic models of mind and its origin. An audio clip by William Lane Craig that summarises Plantinga's argument on this in a nutshell, is useful: [--> follow the link to listen] . . . This issue can be addressed at a more sophisticated level [[cf. Hasker in The Emergent Self (Cornell University Press, 2001), from p 64 on, e.g. here as well as Reppert here and Plantinga here (briefer) & here (noting updates in the 2011 book, The Nature of Nature)], but without losing its general force, it can also be drawn out a bit in a fairly simple way: a: Evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature; from hydrogen to humans by undirected chance and necessity. b: Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws of chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of happenstance initial circumstances. (This is physicalism. This view covers both the forms where (a) the mind and the brain are seen as one and the same thing, and those where (b) somehow mind emerges from and/or "supervenes" on brain, perhaps as a result of sophisticated and complex software looping. The key point, though is as already noted: physical causal closure -- the phenomena that play out across time, without residue, are in principle deducible or at least explainable up to various random statistical distributions and/or mechanical laws, from prior physical states. Such physical causal closure, clearly, implicitly discounts or even dismisses the causal effect of concept formation and reasoning then responsibly deciding, in favour of specifically physical interactions in the brain-body control loop; indeed, some mock the idea of -- in their view -- an "obviously" imaginary "ghost" in the meat-machine. [[There is also some evidence from simulation exercises, that accuracy of even sensory perceptions may lose out to utilitarian but inaccurate ones in an evolutionary competition. "It works" does not warrant the inference to "it is true."] ) c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this meat-machine picture. So, we rapidly arrive at Crick's claim in his The Astonishing Hypothesis (1994): what we subjectively experience as "thoughts," "reasoning" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as the unintended by-products of the blind natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains that (as the Smith Model illustrates) serve as cybernetic controllers for our bodies. d: These underlying driving forces are viewed as being ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection [["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning [["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [[i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. And, remember, the focal issue to such minds -- notice, this is a conceptual analysis made and believed by the materialists! -- is the physical causal chains in a control loop, not the internalised "mouth-noises" that may somehow sit on them and come along for the ride. (Save, insofar as such "mouth noises" somehow associate with or become embedded as physically instantiated signals or maybe codes in such a loop. [[How signals, languages and codes originate and function in systems in our observation of such origin -- i.e by design -- tends to be pushed to the back-burner and conveniently forgotten. So does the point that a signal or code takes its significance precisely from being an intelligently focused on, observed or chosen and significant alternative from a range of possibilities that then can guide decisive action.]) e: For instance, Marxists commonly derided opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismissed qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? Should we not ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is little more than yet another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And -- as we saw above -- would the writings of a Crick be any more than the firing of neurons in networks in his own brain? f: For further instance, we may take the favourite whipping-boy of materialists: religion. Notoriously, they often hold that belief in God is not merely cognitive, conceptual error, but delusion. Borderline lunacy, in short. But, if such a patent "delusion" is so utterly widespread, even among the highly educated, then it "must" -- by the principles of evolution -- somehow be adaptive to survival, whether in nature or in society. And so, this would be a major illustration of the unreliability of our conceptual reasoning ability, on the assumption of evolutionary materialism. g: Turning the materialist dismissal of theism around, evolutionary materialism itself would be in the same leaky boat. For, the sauce for the goose is notoriously just as good a sauce for the gander, too. h: That is, on its own premises [[and following Dawkins in A Devil's Chaplain, 2004, p. 46], the cause of the belief system of evolutionary materialism, "must" also be reducible to forces of blind chance and mechanical necessity that are sufficiently adaptive to spread this "meme" in populations of jumped- up apes from the savannahs of East Africa scrambling for survival in a Malthusian world of struggle for existence. Reppert brings the underlying point sharply home, in commenting on the "internalised mouth-noise signals riding on the physical cause-effect chain in a cybernetic loop" view: . . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions. [[Emphases added. Also cf. Reppert's summary of Barefoot's argument here.] i: The famous evolutionary biologist J. B. S. Haldane made much the same point in a famous 1932 remark: "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (Highlight and emphases added.)] j: Therefore, though materialists will often try to pointedly ignore or angrily brush aside the issue, we may freely argue: if such evolutionary materialism is true, then (i) our consciousness, (ii) the "thoughts" we have, (iii) the conceptualised beliefs we hold, (iv) the reasonings we attempt based on such and (v) the "conclusions" and "choices" (a.k.a. "decisions") we reach -- without residue -- must be produced and controlled by blind forces of chance happenstance and mechanical necessity that are irrelevant to "mere" ill-defined abstractions such as: purpose or truth, or even logical validity. (NB: The conclusions of such "arguments" may still happen to be true, by astonishingly lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” or "warranted" them. It seems that rationality itself has thus been undermined fatally on evolutionary materialistic premises. Including that of Crick et al. Through, self-reference leading to incoherence and utter inability to provide a cogent explanation of our commonplace, first-person experience of reasoning and rational warrant for beliefs, conclusions and chosen paths of action. Reduction to absurdity and explanatory failure in short.) k: And, if materialists then object: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must immediately note that -- as the fate of Newtonian Dynamics between 1880 and 1930 shows -- empirical support is not equivalent to establishing the truth of a scientific theory. For, at any time, one newly discovered countering fact can in principle overturn the hitherto most reliable of theories. (And as well, we must not lose sight of this: in science, one is relying on the legitimacy of the reasoning process to make the case that scientific evidence provides reasonable albeit provisional warrant for one's beliefs etc. Scientific reasoning is not independent of reasoning.) l: Worse, in the case of origins science theories, we simply were not there to directly observe the facts of the remote past, so origins sciences are even more strongly controlled by assumptions and inferences than are operational scientific theories. So, we contrast the way that direct observations of falling apples and orbiting planets allow us to test our theories of gravity. m: Moreover, as Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin reminds us all in his infamous January 29, 1997 New York Review of Books article, "Billions and billions of demons," it is now notorious that: . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel [[materialistic scientists] 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. [[And if you have been led to imagine that the immediately following words justify the above, kindly cf. the more complete clip and notes here.] n: Such a priori assumptions of materialism are patently question-begging, mind-closing and fallacious. o: More important, to demonstrate that empirical tests provide empirical support to the materialists' theories would require the use of the very process of reasoning and inference which they have discredited. p: Thus, evolutionary materialism arguably reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, as we have seen: immediately, that must include “Materialism.” q: In the end, it is thus quite hard to escape the conclusion that materialism is based on self-defeating, question-begging logic. r: So, while materialists -- just like the rest of us -- in practice routinely rely on the credibility of reasoning and despite all the confidence they may project, they at best struggle to warrant such a tacitly accepted credibility of mind and of concepts and reasoned out conclusions relative to the core claims of their worldview. (And, sadly: too often, they tend to pointedly ignore or rhetorically brush aside the issue.)

In short, there are some serious challenges faced by naturalistic explanations of origins, including human origins. And, one thing is sure, this, you would not learn from the confident manner matter of fact claims that you will usually meet. After 150 years, case not proved. Far from it. And of course any serious 6,000 word essay needs to resolve such matters and concerns satisfactorily, not just by hand waving and/or hurling an elephant of authorities that are claimed to prove the assertions. Show us, in summary, why we should prefer common descent per blind watchmaker thesis evo, on empirical warrant, on its own merits. So far, wiki as stand in only deepens the challenge, it does not resolve it. KFkairosfocus

October 6, 2012

October

10

Oct

6

06

2012

04:11 AM

4

04

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Okay: Third day, still no takers up of the 6,000 word essay challenge. CR's ignoring of an interdict due to false accusations and trying to divert the thread into a debate over what design thinkers have to say is simply yet another illustration of how objectors to design largely base their case on default evolutionism per the party-line, backed up by attack, attack, attack. In his case he has slandered us on the Barbara Forrest line of "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo" and so would be theocratic tyrants talking points. a good sample of his blunders lies in how he finds Dembski's summary of how designers work objectionable. Remember, THIS is what he objects to:

. . . (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. (No Free Lunch, p. xi. HT: ENV.)

I don't know CR's experience with design, but if he knows how even houses and cars or computer programs, or even essays get designed and built, this is instantly familiar. But, he wants to put up a distractive objection so he does. Similarly, he refuses to attend to the fact that ever since the beginning of the biological side of modern design theory 25+ years ago, the focal issue has been detection of design as key causal factor on tested, reliable empirical factors, not debates over designers. Where also, the evidence in hand from Venter et al makes it very credible that a sufficient cause of cell based life could be a molecular nanotech lab. That has long been obvious, and from Thaxton et al on, design thinkers assessing signs of design in life on earth have carefully pointed out that the evidence of design of life on earth does not by itself point to designers within or beyond the cosmos. CR goes on to raise a raft of talking points on inductive reasoning, flying the flag of Popper. What he will not acknowledge is that when Popper had to accept the significance of "corroboration" of well tested best to date theories, this points to an unacknowledged acceptance of inference to best current empirically tested explanation. There is no real need to further follow on distractive side tracks, as a major and utterly telling issue is sitting on the table. Namely, after ten days sitting in a thread comment, and now three days after being headlined as a full original post [one that for the moment sits at the top of the popular current posts and has the sort of hits to comments ratio that normally indicates scrutiny elsewhere, often hostile . . . ], NONE of the ever so vociferous and learned objectors to design theory has been willing to take up an offer to post here at UD a guest post of a 6,000 word essay outlining the positive evidence for blind watchmaker thesis evolution from OOL on to our own origin. Over the past couple of days, excerpts from Wikipedia have stood in in lieu of such a submission. Simple highlighting of and briefly discussing key logical gaps suffices to show that something is seriously wrong and has been wrong for 150 years. Of course, such gaps and limitations are not in the news headlines, and are not in the textbooks, and no wise student would openly challenge the "consensus." All of this speaks volumes. Let the record reflect this. KFkairosfocus

October 6, 2012

October

10

Oct

6

06

2012

03:21 AM

3

03

21

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

it’s unclear how this is a “significant empirically grounded challenge” given that the specific criteria listed does not itself appear to be well defined or “empirically grounded”.

How could a list of requirements be, as you suggest, "empirically grounded?" It is the argument or the thesis that must meet that challenge.

For example, would you agree or disagree that explanations are better than others if they explain more phenomena than their rivals? In what way is your answer “warranted”?

The decision about which way to make an empirically-grounded, well warranted case for a given proposition is up to the one doing the explaining, not the one asking for the explanation. The latter simply establishes the aforementioned criteria.

It would seem that one’s definition of “best” depends on assumptions that are themselves not “empirically grounded”, such as whether explaining how the knowledge used to perform biological adaptations was created is possible or represents progress, and would therefore represent a better explanation.

The best argument would be the one which, given the facts in evidence, is the more persuasive of the two competing arguments.

Specifically, consider assumptions, such as whether the designer is simple, rather than complex, or “just was”, complete with the knowledge required to[2] form a plan that would actually accomplish a purpose[1]. The knowledge of which building materials to select and how assembling them would result in the desired result[3]. And the knowledge of how to apply the instructions in a way gives the desired result in a particular concrete scenario, in practice[4]. (For example, knowing how to build a house doesn’t necessary mean you know how do you build a house in a hurricane), etc.

You appear to be confusing your misguided and incoherent criticisms of ID with the challenge of providing a coherent argument for Darwinism.

Whether this knowledge needs to be explained or cannot be explained doesn’t appear itself to be “empirically grounded”. Rather, it seems to be based on theological interpretations of Biblical scripture, such as John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In fact, I’ve seen this verse in particular given a response to that question on another thread.

Do the words "focus" and "relevance" have any meaning for you at all?

IOW, it’s unclear how the definitions of “IBCE” and “warranted” that will supposedly be applied in this challenge are themselves be “empirically grounded” or “warranted”. A such, it’s unclear why I, as a Darwinist, should actually take it seriously even if I adopted your own criteria.

Let's forget about a pro-Darwin argument for the moment. At this point, I will gratefully settle for a comprehensible paragraph.StephenB

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

10:04 PM

10

10

04

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

There is a serious matter on the table, to be addressed in the context that there is now a significant empirically grounded challenge to the claim that blind chance forces and mechanical necessity can account for the world of life.

it's unclear how this is a "significant empirically grounded challenge" given that the specific criteria listed does not itself appear to be well defined or "empirically grounded". For example...

(i)an intro, (ii) a thesis, (iii) a structure of exposition, (iv) presentation of empirical warrant that meets the inference to best current empirically grounded explanation [--> IBCE] test for scientific reconstructions of the remote past, (v) a discussion and from that (vi) a warranted conclusion.

Criteria (iv) is (best current empirically grounded explanation) not well defined. For example, would you agree or disagree that explanations are better than others if they explain more phenomena than their rivals? In what way is your answer "warranted"? It would seem that one's definition of "best" depends on assumptions that are themselves not "empirically grounded", such as whether explaining how the knowledge used to perform biological adaptations was created is possible or represents progress, and would therefore represent a better explanation. Specifically, consider assumptions, such as whether the designer is simple, rather than complex, or "just was", complete with the knowledge required to[2] form a plan that would actually accomplish a purpose[1]. The knowledge of which building materials to select and how assembling them would result in the desired result[3]. And the knowledge of how to apply the instructions in a way gives the desired result in a particular concrete scenario, in practice[4]. (For example, knowing how to build a house doesn't necessary mean you know how do you build a house in a hurricane), etc. Whether this knowledge needs to be explained or cannot be explained doesn't appear itself to be "empirically grounded". Rather, it seems to be based on theological interpretations of Biblical scripture, such as John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In fact, I've seen this verse in particular given a response to that question on another thread. IOW, it's unclear how the definitions of "IBCE" and "warranted" that will supposedly be applied in this challenge are themselves be "empirically grounded" or "warranted". A such, it's unclear why I, as a Darwinist, should actually take it seriously even if I adopted your own criteria. _________ CR, you know you have a matter of an unresolved and serious false accusation to be dealt with before trying to participate in threads I own. Final warning in this thread. You know how to resolve the matter if you care to. KFcritical rationalist

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

07:55 PM

7

07

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

critical rationalist:

The problem is that very few people in either camp understand the underlying issue.

Which "camp" are you in? What is "the underlying issue"? You don't say. Let us know when you are willing to put your money where your mouth is.Mung

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

07:24 PM

7

07

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The problem is that very few people in either camp understand the underlying issue. Take the NFL quote...

. . . (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. (No Free Lunch, p. xi. HT: ENV.)

Note there is no account for the knowledge an abstract designer with no defined limitations would have needed to make 2-4 possible. It's completely missing. If IDists think there is no need to explain how this knowledge was created in the case of an abstract designer, then it's unclear why IDists think there is a need to explain the origin of the knowledge found in the genes of biological organisms. Neither serve an explanatory purpose, which actually address the problem. if I were a justificationist, I'd object due to the fact that IDists have not proven (justified) the assumption that any known designer existed at the required time, proven (justified) the assumption that it actually had possession of the necessary knowledge and proven (justified) the assumption that it could effect material reality. However, since I'm a critical rationalist, I directly ask IDists to provide an explanation for how this supposed knowledge the designer use was created, then ask the IDist to point out how Darwinism does't fit that explanation. However, no explanation is provided. My explanation for its absence is that IDists think the designer is God and scripture indicates God supposedly "just was", complete with complete with the knowledge of how to adapt raw materials into biological adaptations, already present. So, IDists omit this because they want their theory to appear "scientific" and their theology entails the assumption that an explanation is not possible. So, apparently, whether any explanation would represent "the best explanation" depends on one's theological position on whether this knowledge "just was" and therefore does not need to be explained (or cannot be explained). As such, It's unclear how any essay can be judged without first explicit disclosing and discussing this issue first. What I find particularly odd is that when I make the same distinction between non-explanatory knowledge and explanatory knowledge on the thread regarding crows reasoning about hidden agents, and present it as a deductively valid argument, I received a favorable response from the author of the OP.

CR…there are two types of knowledge: explanatory and non-explanatory. While people can create both kinds of knowledge, only people can create explanatory knowledge in the form of explanatory theories. This is because, as universal explainers, only people can create explanations. People create explanatory knowledge when they intentionally conjecture an explanation for a specific problem, then test that explanation for errors. If the theory is found to be internally consistent, it can [then] be tested via empirical observations. […] However, conjectures made in the absence of a specific problem result in non-explanatory knowledge. Specifically, it’s random in respect to any particular problem to solve. […] Furthermore, being non-explanatory in nature, its reach was significantly limited. This is in contrast to explanatory knowledge, which has significant and potentially infinite reach.

CR: While crows have “problems” [find themselves in scenarios that we identify as problems], they do not conceive of [problems] in the sense that people do because the knowledge they create is non-explanatory and lacks significant reach. For example, could they use the knowledge they created to solve the same problem, but by inverting its application? Can it be applied in significantly different environments with the same opportunities or with significantly materially different parts that have equivalent capabilities and properties? These are features specific to explanatory knowledge, which people create, yet are absent from the study.

What I did was start out with the conjecture that Crows can reason about hidden agents, then criticize it based on our current, best explanation of how knowledge is created, the types of resulting knowledge created based on that explanation and the reach that knowledge would have. When I do this, the reach of the knowledge that crows create is inconsistent with the reach of explanatory knowledge. Therefore we need not be skeptical regarding crows reasoning about hidden agents.

VJ: Hi critical rationalist, I enjoyed reading your post (#20 above), and I totally agree with the careful distinction you drew between explanatory and non-explanatory kinds of knowledge. I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote in your final paragraph:

Since “reasoning about hidden causal agents” entails creating explanatory knowledge, we need not be skeptical about whether crows do not exhibit it. Rather crows are creating non-explanatory knowledge, which are essentially useful rules of thumb.

My sentiments exactly.

When I apply this same criticism to the knowledge as found in the genome, we find that it too is limited as compared to the reach of explanatory knowledge. However, apparently, this same criticism in the form of a validly inductive argument isn't accepted. Again, it's unclear how any sort of essay would be productive until inconsistent acceptance of deductive arguments based on knowledge creation theories, along with what actually needs to be explained and why, is addressed. __________ CR, are you willing to resolve the fairly serious matter, if so kindly do so now. If not, understand the context of this thread and what you need to do to be a participant. KFcritical rationalist

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

04:12 PM

4

04

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

This entire issue boils down to the question: Is it even possible for the laws of physics to explain information? In principle, as a matter of logic, they cannot. The laws of physics describe and prescribe the behavior of every bit of matter and energy in the universe. Physical laws govern the behavior of physical things. Information requires language. Language requires symbols and rules. Symbols are ABSTRACT THINGS, arranged freely and purposefully in accordance with the rules of the language (and one hopes, logic) in order to create information. Let me say that again. The FREE and PURPOSEFUL arrangement of SYMBOLS is required for the generation of information. Free and purposeful have no standing in physics. Thus the denial of said free will and purpose. Meaning, or semantic content, or in the case of biology, LIFE is encoded into a physical substrate (explained by said physical laws) but it is DIFFERENT and APART FROM the physical substrate. Only a mind or Mind can explain information. There are no laws of physics nor are there any algorithms based upon these laws that can EVER hope to explain how and why symbols are arranged in one way and not another and why they mean or do not mean anything. This is not that difficult. The naturalist/materialist/physicalist position is destroyed. It's game over for these... people. They just haven't awakened to that difficult (for them) fact yet.tgpeeler

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

08:43 AM

8

08

43

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Never mind, we can pull up a handy summary of conventional wisdom substitute for the empty chair we are facing.

lol. go Clint!Mung

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

08:07 AM

8

08

07

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I'm surprised that keiths over at TSZ hasn't taken up the challenge. He seems a knowledgeable sort.Mung

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

08:02 AM

8

08

02

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Okay Let's continue to survey and critique the modern grand blind watchmaker evolutionary synthesis, in outline. (Looking at the overall summary allows us to see the logical patterns and issues as we look at the forest as a whole and don't get lost in the trees. I suspect this is where a lot of the reluctance to provide a 6,000 word survey comes from. Never mind, we can pull up a handy summary of conventional wisdom substitute for the empty chair we are facing.) Back to Wiki standing in, here on evolution (but we must first recall from yesterday as already clipped, that there is no sound answer to the OOL challenge so the Darwinist tree of life has no root):

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1] Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction. Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. [--> Wallace the ID-ish heretic gets left out . . . ] Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5] In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[6] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[7] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large . . . . In the 1920s and 1930s a modern evolutionary synthesis connected natural selection, mutation theory, and Mendelian inheritance into a unified theory that applied generally to any branch of biology. The modern synthesis was able to explain patterns observed across species in populations, through fossil transitions in palaeontology, and even complex cellular mechanisms in developmental biology.[23][42] The publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 demonstrated a physical basis for inheritance.[43] Molecular biology improved our understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Advancements were also made in phylogenetic systematics, mapping the transition of traits into a comparative and testable framework through the publication and use of evolutionary trees.[44][45] In 1973, evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky penned that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", because it has brought to light the relations of what first seemed disjointed facts in natural history into a coherent explanatory body of knowledge that describes and predicts many observable facts about life on this planet.[46] Since then, the modern synthesis has been further extended to explain biological phenomena across the full and integrative scale of the biological hierarchy, from genes to species. This extension has been dubbed "eco-evo-devo" . . . . Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts: Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms. Organisms produce more progeny than can survive. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.[93] The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[94] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[94] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.[95] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[94] . . . . Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behaviour of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioural and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by co-operating with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually beneficial symbiosis. In the longer term, evolution produces new species through splitting ancestral populations of organisms into new groups that cannot or will not interbreed. These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[141] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[142] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved.[143] . . . . Highly energetic [= thermodynamically unfavourable, hence hard to account for spontaneously in plausible prebiotic environments] chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed.[241] The current scientific consensus [--> appeal to authority and to no true scotsman, where in fact a major debate and conundrum is being papered over] is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions.[242] The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[243] and the assembly of simple cells.[244] [--> restating the problem with some speculations inserted, as though it is the solution] . . . . All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. [--> begging the question] [173][245] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[246] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups – similar to a family tree.[247] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species. [--> burying the evidence of mutually incompatible molecular trees and the evidence of code libraries under an assertion] [248][249] Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.[250] By comparing the anatomies of both modern and extinct species, paleontologists can infer the lineages of those species. However, this approach is most successful for organisms that had hard body parts, such as shells, bones or teeth. Further, as prokaryotes such as bacteria and archaea share a limited set of common morphologies, their fossils do not provide information on their ancestry. More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.[251] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.[252] For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 96% of their genomes and analyzing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.[253] [--> Where of course this very case is riddled with all sorts of highly questionable assumptions and assertions] . . . . The history of life was that of the unicellular eukaryotes, prokaryotes and archaea until about 610 million years ago when multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans in the Ediacaran period.[255][262] The evolution of multicellularity occurred in multiple independent events, in organisms as diverse as sponges, brown algae, cyanobacteria, slime moulds and myxobacteria.[263] Soon after the emergence of these first multicellular organisms, a remarkable amount of biological diversity appeared over approximately 10 million years, in an event called the Cambrian explosion. Here, the majority of types of modern animals appeared in the fossil record, as well as unique lineages that subsequently became extinct. [[--> top down, not bottom up . . . what is this telling us?] [264] Various triggers for the Cambrian explosion have been proposed, including the accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere from photosynthesis.[265] About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonised the land and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals.[266] Insects were particularly successful and even today make up the majority of animal species.[267] Amphibians first appeared around 364 million years ago, followed by early amniotes and birds around 155 million years ago (both from "reptile"-like lineages), mammals around 129 million years ago, homininae around 10 million years ago and modern humans around 250,000 years ago.[268][269][270] However, despite the evolution of these large animals, smaller organisms similar to the types that evolved early in this process continue to be highly successful and dominate the Earth, with the majority of both biomass and species being prokaryotes.[151] . . .

There is of course no discussion of the origin of functionally specific biological information challenge, there is an obvious assumption that incremental variation is sufficient to explain all of biodiversity, and the OOL challenge is severely understated. Notice in particular the notion that macro-evo is simply cumulative micro-evo. That is a strong reflection of the assumption of incrementalism. On e of the most stunning bland false assertions above is this, and it is a doozy:

Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation

We live in a world with literally billions of observed incidents of adaptation by design. This is an unwarranted and false assertion that plays a material part in deciding the issue before the facts can speak. The definition and discussion of the power of natural selection cleverly skirts the problem of a claimed but dubious self-evident truth: grand question-begging. A true self evident truth is one that is seen as such once one understands what is asserted, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial, e.g. error exists. What is really happening here is that this is a major assumption not open to question in the system and seen as being so obviously "true" that if you question you are perceived as being an outsider and fair game for dismissal. After all if something is self evident then only one who insists on absurdities will reject it. But in fact a closer look will reveal a major gap:

Evolution by means of natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become and remain, more common in successive generations of a population. It has often been called a "self-evident" mechanism because it necessarily follows from three simple facts: Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms. Organisms produce more progeny than can survive. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.

Go down a bit and the gap becomes even more glaring:

outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[141] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[142] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved.

In short the origin of information challenge and the easily observed fact that multi-part function that depends on specific placement, connexion, fit and interaction of particular components is easily perturbed by removing or improperly adjusting key components, are being ducked. In short the general evidence points to islands of function, all across our world of experience. This extends to biology where sometimes as few as one or two changes in a protein can destroy function, as well as the factually observed reality of thousands of sharply distinct protein fold domains in the space of possible sequences, point strongly to islands of function. And, the proposed duck-out, of exaptation, runs smack into Angus Mengue's challenges C1 - C5:

C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function. C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time. C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant. C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. ( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)

Whether or not something is actually strictly irreducibly complex, these challenges have to be met for good engineering functionality reasons. So, we can take islands of function to be a serious challenge, and a roadblock to the bland assertion that in effect macro-evo is nothing but accumulated micro-evo to the point where sufficient divergence of populations has occurred. And, we have not touched on the observations made by S J Gould et al, on the problem posed by observed sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance, as a dominant feature of the fossil record at all levels. Of which, the Cambrian life revo is a capital case in point, where dozens of top level body plans appear suddenly in the record, in a window of 5 - 10 MY on the usual timeline. It would credibly take 10 - 100+ mn bits worth of functional info to do that, dozens of times over. Not to mention, this is TOP DOWN, not bottom up. So, even if one accepts universal common descent -- given the problem of cogently defining a species, every one including most modern YEC's will accept limited common descent (probably up to more or less the family or equivalent level) -- the issue of design as best explanation absent question-begging materialist a prioris has not been settled. Perhaps the capstone case of reasoning in an enforced consensus-driven circle is this:

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. [--> begging the question] [173][245] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[246] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups – similar to a family tree.

Notice that implied "self-evident" point again? Common design with built-in capability to adapt is at least as good an explanation of the facts in question as the underlying assumed naturalistic, blind watchmaker thesis evolution, but it has been excluded, a priori, and silently. Within that circle, of course the only allowed explanation -- and this is an inference to best current materialist explanation, not a deduction -- degree of resemblance is suggestive of common ANCESTRY (after all, design has long since been ruled out), and the evidence of some adaptive radiation and biogeographic similarity -- all of this well within the sorts of levels acceptable to even YEC's -- count as persuasive evidence of grand, cumulative divergence from the hypothetical common unicellular ancestor. And, we still find no root to the tree that is empirically warranted. So, common descent with divergence should be separated from the assumption that macro evo is simply cumulative micro, on the info-island of function challenge. That has to be bridged not dismissed. Next, common descent needs to be separated from universal common descent. And common descent to even universal degree in a world where common design is possible and compatible with such, needs to be separated from the assumption of blind watchmaker evolution. Case not proved, and nowhere near being proved. After 150 years, and counting. KFkairosfocus

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

05:24 AM

5

05

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Folks: Two days and counting, no takers. Looks like these folks have decided that the "just don’t understand science [a priori materialism flying the flag of science]" talking point is a good enough brush-off. But what this really shows is that there is a big challenge to answer to the origins question from the evolutionary materialist perspective without convenient a prioris, especially when OOL is in the mix. KFkairosfocus

October 5, 2012

October

10

Oct

5

05

2012

03:56 AM

3

03

56

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: Let Wiki begin to speak for the blind watchmaker thesis. Article on Abiogenesis: >>Abiogenesis (pronounced /?e?ba?.??d??n?s?s/ AY-by-oh-JEN-?-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. Abiogenesis likely occurred between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago, in the Eoarchean era (i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten). Hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be racemically [--> i.e. no answer for handedness] synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth. [--> Of course this is highly disputable] Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation. Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication . . . . There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Under that umbrella, however, are a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures . . . >> So, OOL is a major challenge to a would-be essayist. S/he will need to have a solid answer to such issues. KFkairosfocus

October 4, 2012

October

10

Oct

4

04

2012

07:20 AM

7

07

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PPS: let the objectors who want to pretend that I don't understand science -- as opposed to ideological a prioris imposed on science and flying false colours -- first read this and this, then justify their claims as being more than mere dismissive, red herring and strawman caricature tactic talking points. Then, let them get back to the main point: produce and submit the 6,000 word essay.kairosfocus

October 4, 2012

October

10

Oct

4

04

2012

06:55 AM

6

06

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: Recall, Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg reportedly took about 2 minutes for about 270 words. At that rate, 6,000 words would be a little shorter than 45 minutes. That's a pretty good length lecture, and it is about the upper limit for wide readership of a feature article.kairosfocus

October 4, 2012

October

10

Oct

4

04

2012

06:32 AM

6

06

32

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Let's count: 24 hrs headlined, no takers on the 6,000 word essay challenge so far. (Plus ten days previously as an offer from a comment within a thread.) Remember, this is an offer to host an objecting essay here at UD that shows such warrant as can be marshalled for the blind watchmaker thesis account of the world of life. KFkairosfocus

October 4, 2012

October

10

Oct

4

04

2012

06:26 AM

6

06

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

As I predicted- it is much easier for evos to erect a strawman of ID arguments and find problems with them, then it is to actually ante up and show the world what it is they accept and why they accept it. kairosfocus has been handwaved away because we just don't understand science. Perhaps it is time to shut down the cross blog banter as the TSZ ilk is intellectually bankrupt.Joe

October 4, 2012

October

10

Oct

4

04

2012

04:42 AM

4

04

42

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

PS: I have added a video on Wallace. Well worth viewing.kairosfocus

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

08:49 PM

8

08

49

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N:

As for kairosfocus’s essay, it sounds suspiciously what we have been asking of ID, i.e., “Where are your mechanisms”

Twist-about rhetorical attempt to get back to shooting at the other guy. It also rests on a strawman caricature. Design IS a mechanism -- or rather, a family of mechanisms -- of cause rooted in intelligent and purposeful action, one evident from billions of cases around us. (And notice, the OP and the original in-thread comment pointed to my own presentation here on that does address issues of dynamics, models and methods of science etc at 101 level. So, the twist-about, subject changing attempt is premised on a willful distortion of the easily accessible truth.) To put this particular strawman to bed, let's clip the IOSE summary page where it cites Dembski from NFL -- yes, way back in the 1990's in a book based on a doctoral thesis [and so this thinking washed through peer review TWICE] -- on that point:

. . . (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. (No Free Lunch, p. xi. HT: ENV.)

The challenge still stands. Provide an adequately empirically warranted account on blind watchmaker thesis chance and necessity mechanisms that accounts for OOL and OO body plans etc. Condense to 6,000 words, and submit. Those looking on will be able to see for themselves whether there is adequate warrant, or whether we are dealing with Lewontin's imposition of a priori materialism that forces a blind watchmaker conclusion by writing the conclusion before the evidence can speak. So far, we have had an invitation to read Darwin (in a context where we have all read the evolutionary textbooks in school and the promotions in the pop sci press, and where many of us are familiar with the technical literature . . . ) and now a turnabout attempt. After a week and more in threads and now about a day as a headlined post, we have not seen anyone stepping up to the plate. The challenge is still on the table. KFkairosfocus

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

08:27 PM

8

08

27

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Joe on the stand at Dover ll, with BarryA running the case? For that, I would fly in ‘specially.

I will be sure to have a subpoena waiting for you. The list is growing. It should be a good time.Joe

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

04:59 PM

4

04

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

“Now the only way to get them to ante up is to have another trial, get them on the stand and have a lawyer with enough knowledge, savvy and tenacity expose them for the equivocating bluffers that they are. “

If only Dembski hadn’t decided to duck and and run at Dover you would have shown us Joe.

What a jerk. The two are not even connected. Talking about desperation time. Dover was lost because of the SCHOOL BOARD and the fact the judge doesn't know anything about science nor what is actually being debated wrt "evolution". If I get my shot it will be due to a sticker/ disclaimer saying that darwin erected and refuted a strawman in the fixity of species and that Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution unless you define "evolution" to be the atheistic blind watchmaker thesis which means it too would be subject to that separation of church and state thingy. But I would love to see any evo answer the question: "How can we test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via accumulations of random mutations (random = chance/ happenstance events)?" OR "How can we test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic? And what evidence is there that natural selection is a designer mimic?" But first I would love any of them to try to sell the strawman that ID and Creation, for that matter, argue for the fixity of species and no change is allowed- species are immutable.

As for kairosfocus’s essay, it sounds suspiciously what we have been asking of ID, i.e., “Where are your mechanisms”.

I have given you a few. You are too dense to understand what a mechanism is. Not my fault.

ID should stand as a theory without the need of using a competing theory as a crutch.

LoL! Umm science mandates that the way to any given design inference be through necessity and chance. So your position isn't a crutch. It is an obstacle, albeit a very small one.

If “Darwinism” never existed, ID would have no talking points at all.

Of course you can spew that nonsense over there and get away with it. However we IDists and all objective people know differently. For example Behe's criteria stands on its own.Joe

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

04:57 PM

4

04

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

JB: They know the prize if they can pull off a knockout. Not that I am particularly worried that they can actually do it (especially with OOL right in the heart of the challenge). Maybe I need to bring back the 18 Q's too. But they ALSO know that whistling by the graveyard invites the duppies leaning on the fence and watching the bravado to have some fun by crying out BOO! EEeeeeeeeK! Zoom! PS: I recently heard of a policeman in Ja walking near a graveyard late at night. seeing a man with a coffin on the shoulder he was suspicious and challenged. "It gettin' crowded where me been livin, so me movin house." Zoom! KFkairosfocus

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

03:50 PM

3

03

50

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If we have an essay challenge, shouldn't we have a prize attached?johnnyb

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

03:23 PM

3

03

23

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

No Kairosfocus, they think, really totally believe, that since darwin's time all the peer-reviewed literature supports their claims. All you have to do is read them, all 150+ years worth, it is all supporting evolutionism. So they won't be bothering with your challenge as the problem is all yours for not understanding what they already know. However they have plenty of time and energy to erect strawman after strawman wrt Intelligent Design and falsely accuse us of not understanding science and being anti-science. Now the only way to get them to ante up is to have another trial, get them on the stand and have a lawyer with enough knowledge, savvy and tenacity expose them for the equivocating bluffers that they are.Joe

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

02:34 PM

2

02

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Interestingly quiet, nuh?kairosfocus

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

01:49 PM

1

01

49

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Try Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). It’s a bit dated and longer than 6,000 words, (the 6th edition is 190,000 words), but Darwin considered it just a long abstract, and it still makes for a powerful argument.

We're looking for what would be considered a scientific argument, not a rhetorical one. Darwin was a gifted rhetorician, I'll grant that, but his primary "evidence" for a naturalistic answer to the development and diversification of life consisted of: (i) an analogy to artificial selection in animal husbandry, (ii) extrapolated with imaginary scenarios, (iii) coupled with theological assertions that "God wouldn't have done things" that we see in biology. Sadly, Darwin's adherents have move little beyond this approach in the past century and half. Sorry, but for anyone who understands the real issues confronting a materialistic creation story, The Origin isn't going to cut it. One's view of The Origin as being a "powerful argument" is inversely proportional to one's understanding of the central issues in explaining biological origins and development.Eric Anderson

October 3, 2012

October

10

Oct

3

03

2012

10:47 AM

10

10

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link