Evolution Religion

At Skeptic: Why Christians Should Accept the Theory of Evolution

Spread the love

Larry Arnhart writes:

American Christian fundamentalists reject Darwinian evolution for at least two reasons. The first is their belief that the Bible has revealed a clear teaching about the divine creation of the world that denies Darwinian evolution. The second reason is their belief that Darwinian evolution contradicts the foundational principle of the American creed that human beings have been created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. In this article I will argue that both beliefs are mistaken, and that Christians should all accept the theory of evolution.

American Christian fundamentalists reject Darwinian evolution for at least two reasons. The first is their belief that the Bible has revealed a clear teaching about the divine creation of the world that denies Darwinian evolution. The second reason is their belief that Darwinian evolution contradicts the foundational principle of the American creed that human beings have been created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. In this article I will argue that both beliefs are mistaken, and that Christians should all accept the theory of evolution.

In short, religious fundamentalists reject the Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals because they believe this contradicts what the Bible says about God creating everything, including human beings, and about God as a personal deity who hears prayers and demands faithful obedience. They think … the Bible as God’s Revelation contradicts Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution.

Let’s see what Arnhart has to say about the evidence for intelligent design:

To all of this, the intelligent design theorist Stephen Meyer responds by arguing that although he personally believes in biblical revelation, he sees that the case for an Intelligent Designer as an alternative to materialist natural science is best made on purely scientific grounds without any appeal to biblical authority. He claims that the evidence of science based on our natural observations of the world point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer to explain the appearance of design in the natural world that cannot be explained plausibly by Darwinian evolutionary science.

Meyer’s argument suffers, however, from a fundamental sophistry. Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. This is purely negative reasoning because the proponents of intelligent design are offering no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Intelligent Designer miraculously caused these forms of life. Meyer insists that the proponents of evolutionary science satisfy standards of proof that he and his fellow proponents of intelligent design cannot satisfy, because his sophistical strategy is to put the highest burden of proof on his opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for himself.

The author shows an astounding lack of understanding of the positive case for intelligent design, made clearly by Casey Luskin in a series of recent articles (Common Objections, Physics, Genetics, Systematics, and Paleontology). The boundaries of science, or the limitations of natural processes, provide a positive case for intelligent design, as discussed in my book, Canceled Science.

Arnhart’s concluding paragraph:

So, there are good reasons to believe that two of the major arguments against Darwinian evolution made by American Christian fundamentalists are mistaken. There is no clear biblical revelation denying Darwinian evolution. And there is no reason to believe that the Declaration of Independence requires a creationist theology that contradicts Darwinian science.

Skeptic

It turns out that some American Christian fundamentalists may disbelieve in Darwinian evolution for the wrong reasons, but their disbelief is squarely in line with the scientific evidence.

92 Replies to “At Skeptic: Why Christians Should Accept the Theory of Evolution

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    Gak! That’s not “negative argumentation from ignorance”, it’s the BASIC FUCKING RULE OF SCIENCE. When a theorist like Darwin offers a new theory, it’s up to him and his side to persuade the jury with massive evidence.

    Unlike court trials, there’s no statute of limitations in science, and no final verdict. New evidence on both sides should always be admissible. In this particular cold case, the old theorists got lazy for a while and stopped looking for evidence against the new Darwin theory. In recent years they started looking in new places and new ways, and found massive piles of new evidence for the old theory.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    The lack of understanding comes from not having any interest in contradictory evidence to their beliefs. They believe they are right with no willingness to accept they could be mistaken. Inflexibility, though not scientific, is commonplace among scientists.

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    Who is Larry Arnhart, from wikipedia:

    Larry Arnhart (born January 13, 1949) is a Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. He lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Arnhart has been described as one of the most prominent advocates of contemporary classical liberalism along with Friedrich Hayek and Thomas Sowell.[1] His areas of teaching and research include the history of political philosophy, biopolitical theory, and American political thought. Arnhart is the author of five books and more than forty peer-reviewed articles.[2]

    :))))))

    So … A professor of political science is trying to convince me, a 21st century engineer, that fully autonomous self-navigating self-replicating flying systems self-designed, and that i should accept it, because a bunch of natural science graduates say so …

    But i don’t blame this Darwinian clown … not only he does not know what he is talking about, but he doesn’t even realize how ridiculous and confused he is …

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: As a political scientist, Arnhart should be able to parse this:

    [Lewontin:] . . . to put a correct [–> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people’s heads

    [==> as in, “we” the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making “our” “consensus” the yardstick of truth . . . where of course “view” is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]

    we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> “explanations of the world” is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised “demon[ic]” “supernatural” being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] 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 [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] 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 [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

    Likewise, as an educated person, he should be able to appreciate the basic fact that our rationality transcends gigo constrained computational substrates, rearranging J B S Haldane, co founder of the neo darwinian synthesis:

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    KF

    PS, broken window theory applies, let us not invite a spiral to the gutter.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS, Arnhart should not venture on phil of sci, he fails to observe that Meyer is a PhD in phil of sci and knows a thing or two on the epistemology of science. As a result he sets up and knocks over a strawman. First, the design inference is not argument from ignorance but inference to best explanation on tested, reliable sign. Specifically, on trillions of observed cases, without exception and backed by blind needle in haystack search challenge, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 to 1000 bits [FSCO/I] comes about by intelligently directed configuration. There is no other actually observed cause of FSCO/I, apart from this currently acting cause.Where, there is no good reason to infer that humans exhaust possibilities for designing intelligence, and where the cell has copious algorithmic, alphanumeric code in D/RNA, pointing to purpose and language using intelligence with deep knowledge of polymer chemistry antecedent to cell based life on earth. Where, too, the cosmos exhibits complex fine tuning that supports c chem, aqueous medium cell based life. Such points to cosmological design and to extracosmic designer of great power. We need only point to logic of being issues and why a necessary being root of reality is needed to explain worlds. Ideological imposition dressed in a lab coat as we see from Lewontin does not count. Inference to best explanation on sign goes back to the founder of medicine, Hippocrates, and is one of the first established scientific methods; try the sign of death. Further, the design inference is not a Biblical interpretation, but is a longstanding inference on evidence to signified cause, Plato in The Laws Bk X makes the first on record. Wikipedia and similar ideologically tainted sources are not credible as a basis for writing on ID.

  6. 6
    Bob O'H says:

    Meyer’s “positive” argument is that intelligent agents can do things. But he doesn’t provide any evidence that intelligent agents actually did the things ID is supposed to be interested in explaining. At best he only presents the first step in a positive case. But without a lot of other steps, he doesn’t have a case. It’s a bit like making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK by just stating that last week you saw someone fire a gun.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “In short, religious fundamentalists reject the Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals because they believe this contradicts what the Bible says about God creating everything, including human beings, and about God as a personal deity who hears prayers and demands faithful obedience. They think … the Bible as God’s Revelation contradicts Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution.”

    First off, ‘modern science’, in its foundational presuppositions, is not now, nor has it ever been, ‘naturalistic’.

    In fact, modern science was uniquely born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and was certainly not born out of the “naturalistic” worldview.

    The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – Stephen Meyer – video – (April 2022)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ

    Moreover, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of ‘methodological naturalism’.

    ,,, 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 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.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Moreover, assuming ‘methodological naturalism’, instead of Judeo-Christian Theism, as one’s starting philosophical presupposition for ‘doing science’, (far from being a ‘requirement’ for doing ‘good science’), actually drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure instead of facilitating scientific discovery.

    Basically, 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.,,,

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than methodological naturalism, and/or “Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution”, has 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;

    Secondly, although Arnhart apparently believes that human evolution is such a well established scientific fact that he hardly needs to put up any defense of it in his article, the ‘scientific fact’ of the matter is that the “Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals” is contradicted by the science itself at every turn.

    Jan. 2022 – Fossil Record refutes human evolution
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141

    The evidence from genetics, directly contrary to what Darwinists claim, simply does not support the Darwinian ‘narrative’.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245

    Darwinists simply have no evidence that morphology, and/or biological form, is reducible to mutations to DNA.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740247

    Population Genetics falsifies, instead of confirms, Darwinian claims for human evolution
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/christian-darwinists-must-now-backtrack-re-adam-and-eve/#comment-741335

    Human exceptionalism falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249

    Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why I, as an individual person within the human species, should even come into existence as a person with unique individual subjective conscious experience
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568

    Thus in conclusion, Arnhart need not worry about reinterpreting the Bible for Christians, and/or reinterpreting the Declaration of Independence for them, to make it more compatible with “Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution”, instead Arnhart needs to ‘reinterpret’ his own metaphysical presuppositions to see exactly where and why he is so far out of line with what the science is actually saying.

    Genesis 1:26-27
    Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.…

    ,,, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,,,
    – per Declaration of Independence

  8. 8
    johnnyb says:

    Here is the pattern of reasoning I see so often:

    1) ID criticizes Darwinism because **that is required** for challengers of the predominant theory. You have to show BOTH why you are right AND why the other theory is wrong.
    2) ID critics notice that the negative case is perfectly solid, and they can’t really argue against it
    3) Therefore, they ignore the positive case and say that ID is entirely negative reasoning

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Bob O’H- Cause-and-effect relationships. For example, all of our knowledge says that only intelligent agency volition can produce coded information processing systems. And living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce such systems. And there isn’t even any way to test the claim that nature can do so.

    I though you understood science, Bob?

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Perhaps someone should first formulate a scientific theory of evolution. Until then there isn’t anything for Christians to accept, duh.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica

    Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and
    sufficient to explain their appearances.

    Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same
    causes.

    Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of
    degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our
    experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

    Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general
    induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding
    any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena
    occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

    Science 101

  12. 12
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bob O’H

    At best he only presents the first step in a positive case. But without a lot of other steps, he doesn’t have a case. It’s a bit like making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK by just stating that last week you saw someone fire a gun.

    ID is not making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald did it but that there was a shooter with intent.
    If ID is limited to that first step in a positive case – that intelligence can produce the effect and that a mindless natural cause cannot, then that has quite a lot of value.

    “Ok, ID is the best inference we can draw from this. I am open to evidence that refutes it, but thus far the ID case is the best we’ve got”.
    You don’t have to be sold on ID to at least say something like that.

  13. 13
    Bob O'H says:

    ET @ 9 – you’ve reverted to a negative argument. The OP was trying to argue that ID isn’t just a negative argument, so you’re not helping.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    More Science 101 from Newton, Opticks, Query 31:

    As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically ungrounded] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. [–> this for instance speaks to how Newtonian Dynamics works well for the large, slow moving bodies case, but is now limited by relativity and quantum findings] By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover’d, and establish’d as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving [= testing, the older sense of “prove” . . . i.e. he anticipates Lakatos on progressive vs degenerative research programmes and the pivotal importance of predictive success of the dynamic models in our theories in establishing empirical reliability, thus trustworthiness and utility] the Explanations. [Newton in Opticks, 1704, Query 31, emphases and notes added]

    Where we start.

    KF

    PS, B O’H, selective hyperskepticism. You know full well the actual past of origins beyond our record is an unobservable and is by definition unique. Your demand boils down to direct observation, which you know cannot be met by any present practitioners. Newton pointed out that if we can identify characteristic signs per present observation, we can responsibly infer causes. And he pointed out that if a proposed cause is not observed capable of the like effect, it should not be entertained. The living cell has complex coded algorithms and associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. We are exploring nanotech, and we know codes and algorithms are cases of language and goal directed stepwise processes, and we know these are produced by intelligently directed configuration. In fact, on now trillions of cases [Internet and wider ICTs], we know there are no observed cases where once we can watch the cause, we see blind chance and mechanical necessity producing such. Blind needle in haystack analysis similar to underlying issues of statistical thermodynamics, readily show why that is plausible. So, what you are actually doing is denying and dismissing the evidence we can and do have, to demand what you know we cannot have. That’s not Cricket.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, see the above PS, which answers your just doubled down hyperskepticism. KF

    PS, I can go further, noting that we have chain of custody and text on text, in every cell in our bodies. The text is not narrative but algorithmic. That allows us to write a key contribution to chapter zero of world history, a chapter that speaks of sophisticated design.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    you’ve reverted to a negative argument.

    How do you figure that an argument from our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships is a negative argument?

    All design inferences have to first eliminate blind and mindless processes before intelligent design can be determined. This is obvious from Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. Meaning all design inferences contain a negative aspect, even if that aspect is the mere fact that there isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes are up to the task.

    It seems that Bob O’H doesn’t understand how to investigate an effect, scientifically.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Bob O’H- Cause-and-effect relationships. For example, all of our knowledge says that only intelligent agency volition can produce coded information processing systems. And living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. THAT is the POSITIVE argument, Bob. There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce such systems. And there isn’t even any way to test the claim that nature can do so. And science MANDATES that negative aspect of the design inference.

    I though you understood science, Bob?

    Clearly not.

  18. 18
    Bob O'H says:

    SA @ 12 –

    ID is not making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald did it but that there was a shooter with intent.

    But it doesn’t even do that. It only gets as far as “guns can be shot”, but never tries to make a positive case that a phenomenon was a specific instance of design.

    kf @ 14 –

    You know full well the actual past of origins beyond our record is an unobservable and is by definition unique.

    That’d like arguing that we can’t say that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t shoot JFK because we don’t have video evidence. But we can, at least, infer things about the past even without direct observation.

    Your demand boils down to direct observation, which you know cannot be met by any present practitioners.

    No it doesn’t. I’m happy with less direct evidence, but where the evidence is from the phenomena you are investigating.

    ET @ 16 –

    How do you figure that an argument from our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships is a negative argument?

    Because you use it to say ” There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce such systems. “. That’s a negative argument.

    All design inferences have to first eliminate blind and mindless processes before intelligent design can be determined.

    No they don’t. You don’t need to rule out JFK dying of a heart attack before you can say that he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    Because you use it to say ” There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce such systems. “. That’s a negative argument.

    Wow. Just wow. So, in Bob’s mind a positive argument is actually just a negative argument because in fact the positive argument is saying there isn’t anything else that can cause it. Yet that is what archaeology and forensic science does!

    All design inferences have to first eliminate blind and mindless processes before intelligent design can be determined.

    No they don’t.

    It’s called PARSIMONY, Bob. If a geologist can demonstrate that geological processes can produce what archaeologists say is an artifact, the geologist wins.

    You don’t need to rule out JFK dying of a heart attack before you can say that he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Actually, the cause of death needs to be determined in every case. And natural processes take precedence.

    Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning, refute you, Bob. Parsimony refutes you, Bob. Occam’s Razor refutes you, Bob.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    And the The explanatory filter refutes you, Bob.

  21. 21
    PaV says:

    First,

    Polistra:

    The language you used in your first post is offensive to me. I don’t see the need for it. There’s plenty of other ways of expressing what you want to say. Thanks for being sensitive to this. 🙂

    Second, as to Arnhart’s argument—-there’s problems.

    The first problem is simply this: take the quote below and simply exchange “intelligent design theorists” with “evolutionary biologists,” and vice versa.

    Then the following—

    Meyer’s argument suffers, however, from a fundamental sophistry. Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. This is purely negative reasoning because the proponents of intelligent design are offering no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Intelligent Designer miraculously caused these forms of life. Meyer insists that the proponents of evolutionary science satisfy standards of proof that he and his fellow proponents of intelligent design cannot satisfy, because his sophistical strategy is to put the highest burden of proof on his opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for himself.

    becomes something like this:

    Evolutionary biologists depend completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which evolutionary biologists argue that if intelligent design theorists cannot fully explain the step-by-step intelligent process by which the intelligent designer brought about changes in living forms, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by materialistic laws of nature. This is purely negative reasoning because evolutionary biologists offer no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Laws of Nature miraculously caused these forms of life [to emerge and diversify]. Evolutionary biologists insist that the proponents of Intelligent Design satisfy standards of proof that they cannot satisfy. And so, the sophistical strategy of evolutionary biologists is to put the highest burden of proof on their opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for themselves.”

    This transposition of the argument is as equally valid as the original, if not more so. To me, Arnhart employs what amounts to an empty argument. It proves and demonstrates nothing–a waste of time, as I see it.

    But, there’s more.

    Later, Arnhart writes this:

    Ham refers to the famous case of Anthony Flew, the British philosopher who argued for philosophic atheism until he was persuaded to accept the argument for intelligent design, and he became a deist.Ham observes that since Flew never accepted the clear revelation in the Bible of God as Creator and Jesus as Savior, he died “as a Christ-rejecting sinner who sadly will spend eternity in Hell.” So, in Ham’s interpretation, those who fail to receive the correct revelation of Biblical creationism will go to Hell!

    Isn’t it interesting that Arnhart chooses to focus on Ham’s theology rather than on the scientific side of all of this. He thinks, I suppose, that Ham is a brute because he’s condemning Anthony Flew to Hell.

    But the real point of all of this is that a British philosopher who had argued for atheism his whole life, nonetheless is “persuaded to accept the argument for intelligent design.” Further, Flew’s acceptance of this argument had NOTHING to do with any understanding he had of the Bible. This pertinent understanding is, in fact, made abundantly clear since Ham is ready to put Flew in Hell precisely because Anthony Flew doesn’t accept what Ham sees as the essential theological underpinnings of the intelligent design argument.

    In other words, what Arnhart writes here is a direct refutation of the very argument he’s trying to make. Anthony Flew began to believe in God not because the Bible convinced him of it, but because he found the argument for Intelligent Design so persuasive. This points out the fallacy in Arnhart’s thinking: he mistakes Meyer’s true argument–which is that Intelligent Design can EXPLAIN more than Darwinian theory, with a pseudo-understanding of the argument–that Meyer comes to his view on Intelligent Design based solely on evolutionary biologists’ inability to provide evidence for a “step-by-step” process by which higher forms of life arose.

    As Eric points out in his thread: “the author shows an astounding lack of understanding of the positive case for intelligent design.”

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    Sad that the word “fundamentalists” appears so often. As if ‘those people’ are incapable of rational thought, and doesn’t everybody know that the Bible is wrong about origins/creation? 🙂

    It’s clear that God created. That is not debatable. As more and more is discovered regarding functional elements in living things, the odds for chance being the correct answer drops by orders of magnitude.

  23. 23
    AaronS1978 says:

    Jus read the article, he is right, suddenly I’m an evolutionist and I can example EVERYTHING (right or wrong) cause that’s better……..

    Negative CRITICISM is well a criticism not a proof. Secondly we explain why ID is more useful to explain the Phenomena and certainly NOT like our magic dude in the sky came down with a monkey wrench and did it

    I mean I guess a lot of us might think it’s obvious so we don’t go into detail but a lot of the reasoning behind intelligent design is things happen to conveniently and to perfectly

    For me the universe is too finely tuned and the mechanics of the universe directly control the result of our existence and those mechanics could be off by just a small amount and we would all cease to exist are living in terrible hell

    I think the universe is a tool and it’s God’s tool that’s my personal opinion

    And the fact that we can perceive this and it is all around us is the reason why we don’t think random evolution accidentally bumbled onto our existence and that we evolved all of these magical traits that make us who we are by accident

    Another criticism we levee at evolution is the fact that it uses an incredible amount of circular reasoning especially evolutionary psychology which this guy NEVER brings up

    Almost 100% of evolutionary psychology is circular reasoning so we should definitely reject it right out of hand because of the same reasoning this guy rejects intelligent design right out of hand do two negative reasoning but real science is waiting for Darwin Christ to explain why I feel morally towards others which that evolved to make people like me so I’d survive!

    God that’s just another way of saying god of gabs is really what it is which again Darwinian evolution is also incredibly guilty of

    Such as the appendix “we don’t know what its function does, evolution did it, it’s nothing but evolutionary sprandel but it has not function”

    I mean that’s literally a god of gaps argument that genuinely happened and now the appendix has function and it’s important because we looked into it and it wasn’t just some random evolutionary junk

  24. 24
    relatd says:

    Don’t you know ‘evolutionary psychology’ is true? 🙂

    You, yes you, have a brain that could care less about truth just survival and reproduction. Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    BO’H, kindly post an actual camera shot video of the origin of the cosmos, the solar system, life, vertebrates, man. You cannot and you know it. Further to which, the presence of record of eyewitnesses runs out about 3000+ BC. You know this too. Beyond that point, reconstructions are more and more indirect, more and more interpretive and open to challenge. I have pointed to the text discovered in the cell as a key point that needs to reshape our thinking, and it should. Newton has posed frameworks for controlling reconstructions in ways that deliberately bridle speculation, anchored on observed causal capabilities. If we had better heeded him, we would be in better shape now. KF

  26. 26
    Seversky says:

    The evidence for design is basically the same as it was going back to Paley and before. It amounts to the observation that there are phenomena in nature that are analogous to human artefacts and/or such phenomena could not have emerged from natural processes.

    In the case of any argument from analogy, a balanced judgement of the merits can only come from weighing both the similarities and the differences.

    In the case of the claim that certain phenomena could not have arisen from natural causes, the obvious question is are we entitled to make such a claim given the limitations of human knowledge?

    Another weakness of the ID claim to scientific credibility is their aversion to investigating the nature of their proposed Designer, which should be of primary interest.

  27. 27
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 26,

    You’re starting to repeat yourself. The nature of the Designer? Here are the primary choices:

    1.) God as in the Judeo-Christian God.
    2.) Aliens – as if we have any aliens we can sit down with and talk to.
    3.) A rock from space. A meteor carrying organic material hit the ground and life spread everywhere.

    ID revolves around observations similar to forensic science or crime scene investigation. There is evidence that can be seen but who left it there is part two.

    If God then read the Bible.
    If Aliens, you’re out of luck regarding an explanation.
    If a rock from space, same thing.

  28. 28
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    :)) When a person affirm something(anything) we are under ID umbrella. Without reason there is no idea, no concept, no definition and ultimately no science.

    1.For science you need reason.
    2.For reason you need ID .
    3.Therefore for science you need ID.

    Why atheists ask for ID evidences from science when science itself can’t exist without ID? Are they aware of their own reason? If yes why are they asking for evidences? If not, they understand nothing about reality so they can’t be helped with logical argumentation.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    seversky:

    In the case of the claim that certain phenomena could not have arisen from natural causes, the obvious question is are we entitled to make such a claim given the limitations of human knowledge?

    Yes, because that is how science operates- ALL of science.

    Another weakness of the ID claim to scientific credibility is their aversion to investigating the nature of their proposed Designer, which should be of primary interest.

    That doesn’t follow. Knowing the Wright brothers has no bearing on understanding planes. The primary interest is in understanding the design so we can properly repair and maintain it.

    As for analogies, at least Intelligent Design has that! All you have is your whiny, science-free posts.

    The science of today has to go with the knowledge of today. The science of today does not and cannot wait for what discoveries may or may not come tomorrow. And it’s OK if the discoveries of tomorrow refute the science of today. THAT is how it works! The discoveries of tomorrow may also confirm the science of today!

  30. 30
    relatd says:

    To date, the discoveries of science are providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design.

    As that evidence accumulates, it keeps reducing the idea that blind, unguided chance made living things. Or the universe for that matter.

  31. 31
    groovamos says:

    Seversky:
    Another weakness of the ID claim to scientific credibility is their aversion to investigating the nature of their proposed Designer, which should be of primary interest.

    Another BS assertion by someone who has no basis for the statement, not being familiar with the extended activities of any of the contributors on here. Truth is it is ironic as hell that the maker of the quote seems quite satisfied making the assertion as the assertion can be turned around and directed back, since the Designer is the ultimate cause of the contributor also.

    Let me toss out a proposal. Suppose there were a sacrament that when smoked just once by atheists, were to convince more than half of those atheists of a gigantic error in their worldview, and lead subsequently to their questioning the basis of their atheism. Well guess what, such a substance does exist and the psychiatric dept at Johns Hopkins has interviewed 2,561 people who have smoked this substance. So then the accusation can be turned around:

    Another weakness of the skeptics’ claim to scientific and philosophical certitude is their aversion to the methods of investigating the nature of the Designer of the cosmos, which should be of primary interest.

    In other words not only are millions of people out there and in history who have explored the issue including Aldous Huxley who grouped the fruits of the related quest for knowledge under the catch-all appellation “perennial philosophy” – but that there is an enormous body of literature out there describing it and at the outset blowing scientific materialism to bits. Here is one example link on the aforementioned sacrament which converts atheists, thousands of experiencers interviewed by Johns Hopkins: https://www.iflscience.com/why-do-people-see-elves-and-other-entities-when-they-smoke-dmt-62234

    For more links you can google: DMT + elves

  32. 32
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you want to play the analogies are fallacious game. But the coded algorithms in the cell are not analogies they are instances. KF

    PS, Paley, in Ch 2 raised issues that directly anticipated von Neumann on the kinematic self replicator. I think it is high time he was paid a modicum of respect that is his rightful due.

  33. 33
    martin_r says:

    Relatd

    To date, the discoveries of science are providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design.

    From the moment DNA’s digital 4 letter code was discovered it was clear that life was created.

    Any advanced civilization would such a discovery consider as an ultimate proof of created/engineered system.

    Unfortunately, on this planet, there are people, natural science graduates, so called scientists / Darwinists, who only accept some sort of design. E.g. when they dig up a broken jar made of mud … or a stone tool. On the other hand, when these people (Darwinists) dig up a giant dino skeleton made of sophisticated hi-tech material, for some unknown reason, this is not considered as designed/created/engineered system.

    I can’t decide what is more sophisticated … a broken jar/stone tool or a dino skeleton made of hi-tech material, or a DNA’s 4 letter digital code with encryption/decryption syntax.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Martin: “I can’t decide what is more sophisticated … a broken jar/stone tool or a dino skeleton made of hi-tech material, or a DNA’s 4 letter digital code with encryption/decryption syntax.”

    You may appreciate a little humor along that line

    Dogbert Evolution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhbtCWHj1g

  35. 35
    relatd says:

    Martin_r at 33,

    I trusted my teachers. And that was part of the problem. They, and others on TV, said life evolved. It self-upgraded until it accidentally produced human beings.

    Scientists today can only deal with what is actually in front of them. So those that deal with living things are sometimes unaware that what they think they know – meaning unguided chance – does not apply in the real world. If they are involved with drug discovery and cellular analysis, they are doing actual science with no need for Darwin. The actual results are the actual results.

    Even if they think the DNA code came from a natural – meaning non-God – process, that won’t help them solve real problems today.

  36. 36
    chuckdarwin says:

    According to Pew (2014) a majority of Christians already believe in evolution (54%). A little over half of those folks believe that evolution is part of God’s design. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the 41% that do not believe in evolution are white evangelicals.

    (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/views-about-human-evolution/#demographic-information)

    Personally, I find the pissing match between the theistic evolutionists and evangelicals much more fascinating and entertaining than the old evolution-anti-evolution spat. Watching the Discovery Institute slinging mud at BioLogos is worth the price of admission…

  37. 37
    ET says:

    Theistic evolutionists seem to be cowards in that they insist that God did it but we cannot tell, scientifically, that God did it. And yet not one TE can produce any evidence that blind and mindless processes did it!

    Watching evos and moronic religious people choke on science and evidence is worth the price of admission.

  38. 38
    relatd says:

    CD at 36,

    Ooh, they’re WhIte. The sworn enemy of the Leftist (wannabe) Dictatorship. Are you white? If you are, do you want to be black?

    Theistic evolution does not describe anything. Not in a generic sense. Where, exactly, did God intervene? On the other hand, if there was a process, the Catholic Church teaches that God intervened and did so infallibly. This is not the blind, unguided chance being marketed here.

  39. 39
    relatd says:

    ET at 37,

    What God did is spiritually discerned and can be known by natural reason as well.

    • The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    • Again quoting John Paul II: “To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems.”

    • Quoting the Catechism : “Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason . . . . We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

    Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

  40. 40
    hnorman42 says:

    A couple of observations:

    Although the point seems to be anathema across the board I will say it once. (Okay, maybe more if I feel the need). In order to show an idea to be “only a theory” in the old sense of the term you do not need evidence against it — only a lack of evidence for it.
    There is however a great deal of evidence against blind forces producing evolution and it’s a fortunate bonus but it’s not essential.

    Arnhart misses the point with regards to getting the step-by-step paths to complex forms. It’s easy for us to postulate a set of instructions. The problem is getting a blind agent to find it.

  41. 41
    relatd says:

    Hnorman 42 at 40,

    “There is however a great deal of evidence against blind forces producing evolution…”

    So, starting in the ocean, followed by crawling onto land, followed by lemur-like creatures and then human beings – by blind forces?

    Imagine yourself starting a car and with no driver. How likely would it be for it to cross the country without hitting anything or careening into a river?

  42. 42
    hnorman42 says:

    Relatd @41

    I think that’s the point I was making. I’ll review my comment and see if I need to make any corrections.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    Martin_r, yes. This is a measure of the ideologisation of science and civilisation. KF

  44. 44
    hnorman42 says:

    Relatd –
    Yes I think we’re making the same point. I think I failed to properly identify blind evolution as the “theory” that I was criticizing.
    However, with myself being an intelligent agent and not a blind force, I’m going to co-opt your metaphor of the driverless car.
    If Arnhart’s thinking were correct then writing down a set of instructions that the car could follow would solve the whole problem. But even if we could observe the car making the trip, that would be analogous to common descent. The problem of design would remain.

  45. 45
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/27

    1.) God as in the Judeo-Christian God.

    The Judeo-Christian God may be your candidate but there are others here on Earth who are believed in just as fervently by their followers.

    2.) Aliens – as if we have any aliens we can sit down with and talk to.

    As if we have any gods we can sit down and talk to.

    3.) A rock from space. A meteor carrying organic material hit the ground and life spread everywhere.

    That’s one possibility of how life got to Earth but it doesn’t tell us anything about its origins.

    If God then read the Bible.

    Like I said, I have but personally I prefer The Lord Of The Rings

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    “personally I prefer The Lord Of The Rings”

    J. R. R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic from boyhood, and he described The Lord of the Rings in particular as a fundamentally religious and Catholic work. While he insisted it was not an allegory, it contains numerous themes from Christian theology.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Middle-earth

    “In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — “Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,” as Herbert says, “fine nets and stratagems.” God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life

  47. 47
    Seversky says:

    Groovamos/31

    Another BS assertion by someone who has no basis for the statement, not being familiar with the extended activities of any of the contributors on here.

    The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski.

    Behe proposed that there are biological features which could not conceivably have emerged through natural processes. When biologists were able to show that there were at least conceivable natural origins, that claim was undermined.

    The mathematics Dembski employed to support his case have been criticized as flawed.

    Both Dembski and Behe deserve credit for their work but it hasn’t really moved the needle on the credibility of ID.

    Let me toss out a proposal. Suppose there were a sacrament that when smoked just once by atheists, were to convince more than half of those atheists of a gigantic error in their worldview, and lead subsequently to their questioning the basis of their atheism. Well guess what, such a substance does exist and the psychiatric dept at Johns Hopkins has interviewed 2,561 people who have smoked this substance. So then the accusation can be turned around:

    You do realize that if religious belief can be influenced or modified by chemical agents or electromagnetic fields it calls into question the validity of such beliefs or the need for a god or designer to account for them?

    In other words not only are millions of people out there and in history who have explored the issue including Aldous Huxley who grouped the fruits of the related quest for knowledge under the catch-all appellation “perennial philosophy” – but that there is an enormous body of literature out there describing it and at the outset blowing scientific materialism to bits.

    Yes, there have been millions throughout history who have explored these issues but they are still undecided. We can show the existence of a phenomenon called gravity by watching an apple fall to the ground. It happened in Newton’s day and it still happens now. We have nothing equivalent for the existence of a god.

  48. 48
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 47,

    I was at a comic book convention and witnessed the wife of a man complain that a certain religion did not allow her son to do something. I said something about God and the husband said, “Show me God. If you can show me God I might believe in Him.”

    God waits for you Seversky.

  49. 49
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/46

    “In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — “Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,” as Herbert says, “fine nets and stratagems.” God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.”
    – C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life

    Why would God have to resort to unscrupulous stratagems to reveal His presence? Why not just come out into the open and declare Himself?

    And, going back to my previous response to Groovamos on religious belief, I was reminded of Isaac Asimov’s science-fiction trilogy Foundation and Empire. In the second book of the series, Asimov introduces a character called The Mule who has telepathic powers. These powers are not about reading thoughts so much as manipulating emotions such that an implacably hostile enemy could be brought before him and turned into an adoring follower just by tweaking his emotions. Now, we have stories from the Bible about God hardening the Pharoah’s heart which suggests God has similar powers. That being the case, how do you know that the need to worship God is not some being manipulating your thoughts and feelings?

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev: “The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski.”

    Funny, you can’t even do science in the first place without first presupposing Intelligent Design to be true.

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    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

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: … If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science – Stephen Meyer – video – (April 2022)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ

    Moreover, on top of the fact that science itself is dependent on the presupposition of intelligent design, Darwinian evolution itself is NOT based on any discernible scientific footing,

    Karl Popper, who is widely regarded as one of the, in not THE, leading philosophers of science of the 20th century, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

    Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution – John Horgan – July 6, 2010
    Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....evolution/

    As well, Imre Lakatos, who is also considered one of the leading philosophers of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,”

    Does Evolution have a Hard Core ?
    Excerpt: “ 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.”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun mind-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

    quote:

    “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.,,,”
    – Robert J. Marks II – Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – June 12, 2017
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Sev. I just found it very humorous, since it is filled with Christian themes, that you would cite ‘The Lord of the Rings’ in particular as your ‘preference’.

    🙂

  52. 52
    relatd says:

    BA77 at 50,

    Well said. It seems strange that unguided chance is still the idea accepted by many. But this clashes immediately with an ordered and intelligible universe and planet. But the alternative involves God, which some people do not believe in, so that choice is excluded.

  53. 53
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 49,

    Still looking for reasons to not trust God, as if he manipulates people like a human would. God is God. He acts as God. He’s not an average human being.

  54. 54
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Seversky

    The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski.

    Douglas Axe has done some good work.
    Also, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is an excellent, pro-ID scholar although he mainly critiques evolution and does not necessarily provide an ID-science argument:

    http://www.we-loennig.de/
    The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe
    http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf
    With Plant Galls, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Falsifies Darwinism
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/10/wolf-ekkehard-loennig-falsifies-darwinism/

  55. 55
    jerry says:

    Why not just come out into the open and declare Himself?

    What would a world be like if that were the case?

    Would the best of all possible worlds require doubt?

  56. 56
    relatd says:

    God was on earth, lived on earth, but people saw the miracles and still refused to believe them. When He rose from the dead, one of His disciples, Thomas, asked for proof.

    John 20:27

    Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

  57. 57
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/50

    Moreover, on top of the fact that science itself is dependent on the presupposition of intelligent design, Darwinian evolution itself is NOT based on any discernible scientific footing

    Science as a whole is most certainly not based in the presupposition of intelligent design. That would be a violation of the principle of parsimony, of not multiplying entities beyond necessity.

    Karl Popper, who is widely regarded as one of the, in not THE, leading philosophers of science of the 20th century, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

    As Horgan says, Popper withdrew his criticism of evolution. Horgan implies that Popper was somehow browbeaten into his recantation which seems to be at odds with Popper’s reputation as a a man not easily intimidated.

    As well, Imre Lakatos, who is also considered one of the leading philosophers of science in the 20th century, stated that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,”

    And yet, as the Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke wrote

    Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.

  58. 58
    Seversky says:

    Relatd/56

    God was on earth, lived on earth, but people saw the miracles and still refused to believe them. When He rose from the dead, one of His disciples, Thomas, asked for proof.

    John 20:27

    Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”

    Thomas is a man after my own heart. He wanted proof of what even then was an extraordinary claim. Wouldn’t you? What if I suddenly proclaimed myself to be God reincarnated on Earth, would you take me at my word? Or would you want something more than that?

    The other obvious question is why the story of Doubting Thomas is only to be found in John? Why didn’t the three other gospels mention it?

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, besides Horgan, Tom Bethell also interviewed Karl Popper after the Darwinian backlash and Popper once again reiterated his claim that Darwinism was not a testable scientific theory.

    Tom Bethell on Karl Popper’s rejection of Darwinian Evolution as a testable scientific theory – 5:54 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/MLdZzf8HoUU?t=352

    In his autobiography, Karl Popper said he had come to the conclusion that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.”8 To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment “is almost tautological,” he wrote. “Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival. There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.”
    Further controversy ensued, for Popper—apparently under pressure in England—partially recanted in 1978. Later, in 1988, I had a chance to interview Popper myself, when he spent a week at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. I immediately brought up the issue of natural selection. He told me that his opinion had not changed. He also said he thought that natural selection had in fact been falsified “by Darwin’s own theory.” Distortions introduced by sexual selection sometimes meant that offspring were not better adapted than their parents, he said.
    When I mentioned that Darwinism had evidently benefited from the idea of Progress, widely accepted in the mid-nineteenth century but widely rejected in the late twentieth, Popper said that “I have been one of the people who have destroyed it.” He said he had “preached” along those lines in his book The Poverty of Historicisms.
    Tom Bethell, Darwin’s House of Cards (2016) (pp. 14–15)

    Moreover, it turns out that Popper did not really ever take back his criticism of Darwinism but instead he merely, and cleverly, rephrased his wording so as to give the gestapo Darwinists the superficial impression that he had taken back his criticism of Darwinism,,,

    Laszlo Bencze: Karl Popper Never Really Retracted His Doubt Of Darwin – November 9, 2020
    Most of us know that at one point Karl Popper turned his attention to evolution and made the following statement:
    “…Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.”
    — Unended Quest An Intellectual Autobiography, Karl Popper, p. 168
    The statement aroused so much controversy and animosity amongst his academic colleagues that he was forced to “recant” in the following statement:
    “I have in the past described the theory as ‘almost tautological’, and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.
    “I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.”
    — Popper Selections, Karl Popper (edited by David Miller), p. 242
    Note that his choice of the word “recantation” is significant. He might well have used “reevaluation” or “disavowal” or “repudiation.” I believe he chose recantation deliberately to ally himself with Galileo and to make clear that he was being persecuted by misguided and dimwitted authorities just as Galileo was. Furthermore, he writes that natural selection is “a most successful metaphysical research program.” Wait a minute. Wasn’t that what he was to apologize for? So within his recantation he is reaffirming his original point of view, the very one that got him in trouble.
    He goes on to say that he is glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. Sure he is. He would much prefer to have a root canal without anesthesia than to recant a statement integral to his life’s work as philosopher. Finally, in his summary sentence he is “glad to contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.” So what did he contribute? He contributed the understanding of natural selection as a metaphysical research program.
    I never noticed these points until a friend pointed them out to me. Now they jump forth as obvious.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/laszlo-bencze-karl-popper-never-really-retracted-his-doubt-of-darwin/

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, “Science as a whole is most certainly not based in the presupposition of intelligent design.”

    Sorry to upset your atheistic druthers Sev, but all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the atheist’s presupposition of ‘methodological naturalism’.

    Again, you simply can’t even ‘do science’ without first presupposing Intelligent Design to be true.

    ,,, 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 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.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Moreover, (as stated earlier in this thread at post 7), assuming ‘methodological naturalism’, (and forsaking Judeo-Christian Theism), as one’s starting philosophical presupposition for ‘doing science’, (as atheist’s have self-servingly insisted that we do), actually drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure instead of facilitating any further notable scientific discovery.

    Basically, 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.,,,

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than methodological naturalism, and/or Darwin’s materialistic/natualistic theory, 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;

    Of supplemental note, here is a list of empirical falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory.

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

    2. 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 be grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    3. 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.

    4. Darwin’s theory, (via Fisher’s Theorem in population genetics), assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations to DNA which were, ultimately, responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Yet, the ratio of detrimental to beneficial mutations is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    5. 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 the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, (i.e. disparity), then rapid diversity within the 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).

    6. 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.

    7. 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.”

    8. 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 modern versions of it.”

    9. 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’.

    10. 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!

    11. 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!.

    12. 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.

    13. 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!

    14. Darwinists, 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 are forced to use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/

    Verse:

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

  61. 61
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77/60

    Sorry to upset your atheistic druthers Sev, but all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design….

    “Presuppositionalism” a/k/a confirmation bias a/k/a ideology a/k/a science stopper……..

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Wow- seversky talks about credibility! Yet there isn’t any credible evidence that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life! Evos don’t have any credibility.

  63. 63
    ET says:

    Earth to chuckdarwin- You and yours presuppose that nature is all there is. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

  64. 64
    ET says:

    The extraordinary claim is that nature can produce coded information processing systems. No one can demonstrate such a thing. No one even knows how to test such a claim.

    All evolutionists are cowards and hypocrites.

  65. 65
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    ET
    All evolutionists are cowards and hypocrites.

    Not really. They are sincere but their sincerity seems like hypocrisy only because they have mental problems .They say it as they see it except they are blind. The violation of any of the 10 commandments gradually damage mental health till the point of insanity we see today. So ET you can’t make these people see the reality by name calling or by logical explanations.

  66. 66
    chuckdarwin says:

    ET/63
    After all this time I just realized that “ET” stands for “earth to.” Silly me…..

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    ChuckyD: “Presuppositionalism” a/k/a confirmation bias a/k/a ideology a/k/a science stopper……..”

    I couldn’t agree more. Atheists ideologically presupposing, even falsely mandating, that ‘methodological naturalism’ is the ‘ground rule of science’, has led to extreme confirmation bias in the biological sciences and has been the number one ‘science stopper’ in that area of science. Junk DNA and vestigial organs just to name two major blind alleys that the presupposed, even ideologically mandated, heuristic of naturalism has falsely led biological science down.

    “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

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
    – Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    i.e. “Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”

    “”Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

  68. 68
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 58,

    You know something about the Bible but still don’t know that God was the author. The human writers wrote what they had to write and no more. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John recorded what they were supposed to record and no more.

  69. 69
    JVL says:

    ET: You and yours presuppose that nature is all there is.

    Okay, I’ll bite: what else is there? How do you know of these other . . . things? Realms?

  70. 70
    asauber says:

    “You and yours presuppose that nature is all there is.”

    On top of dat dem not knowin whut “nature” is.

    Andrew

  71. 71
    ET says:

    Did nature create itself? Natural processes only exist in nature. That means they could not have produced it. So, basic logic says there was something else.

  72. 72
    JVL says:

    ET: Did nature create itself? Natural processes only exist in nature. That means they could not have produced it. So, basic logic says there was something else.

    What something else?

  73. 73
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, do you remember J B S Haldane?

    “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For

    if

    [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain

    [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, “my brain,” i.e. self referential]
    ______________________________

    [ THEN]

    [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

    [–> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?]

    [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

    And hence

    [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [–> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence]

    [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]

    In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

    Where, just to have a functional, rational, responsible and free mind, you need a non computational substrate, non algorithmic [or it would reduce to a simple Turing machine] oracle. You depend implicitly on that, for your arguments to have any force beyond dubious programming.

    That’s before logic of being speaks to necessary being reality root, as world from non being is a non starter, circular causation is the same as that, infinite succession of “years” for short cannot be traversed in stepwise succession. Worse, our rationality is inescapably morally governed [your objections rely on our known first duties of reason] and the only adequate place for that is the reality root. Which needs what is antecedent to a physical world, is powerful to create worlds, is inherently good and utterly wise to adequately ground that government.

    So, there is plenty of good reason to know that the physical world is not self explanatory. (By contrast, once a world is, something necessary of being always was and is present in every possible world.)

    KF

  74. 74
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: Where, just to have a functional, rational, responsible and free mind, you need a non computational substrate, non algorithmic [or it would reduce to a simple Turing machine] oracle. You depend implicitly on that, for your arguments to have any force beyond dubious programming.

    That’s before logic of being speaks to necessary being reality root, as world from non being is a non starter, circular causation is the same as that, infinite succession of “years” for short cannot be traversed in stepwise succession. Worse, our rationality is inescapably morally governed [your objections rely on our known first duties of reason] and the only adequate place for that is the reality root. Which needs what is antecedent to a physical world, is powerful to create worlds, is inherently good and utterly wise to adequately ground that government.

    That’s all lovely but . . . What something else are you talking about? Another realm? Another level or layer of reality? What?

  75. 75
    ET says:

    JVL:

    What something else?

    Don’t know and don’t have to know. The logic says there had to be something else. That is all that matters. And the evidence says that it was intelligent.

  76. 76
    JVL says:

    ET: Don’t know and don’t have to know. The logic says there had to be something else. That is all that matters. And the evidence says that it was intelligent.

    So, you just have faith that it’s true?

  77. 77
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    So, you just have faith that it’s true?

    It’s not faith. We know it is true by our rational thoughts. By logic.

    1. Either A or B could have produced the effect.
    2. We observe that it’s not A.
    3. Therefore, it is B.

    You’re saying “But what else do you know about B? But that question is irrelevant to the truth of the proposal.

  78. 78
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    JVL
    So, you just have faith that it’s true?

    :)) To have faith in your reason and to have faith in God it’s an identical process : operates by granting admin privileges to an “entity” of your choice so there is no difference between the faith of atheists and theists . Identical faith , different “entity” therefore different outcomes.

  79. 79
    Paxx says:

    Larry Arnhart: “Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. “

    No, this is not the ID position nor is it Meyer’s position. This guy doesn’t know what ID is. ID is based abductive reasoning, not merely negative arguments. Moreover, it’s not about “proof”, it’s about the best explanation given the evidence that actually exists. As with all science, the best explanation can change when new evidence is uncovered. Moreover, ID doesn’t not deny all evolution, particularly the evolution that is known to actually exist via known variantion mechanisms. ID proponents generally object to ad hoc just-so stories to fill empirical holes to satisfy a cherished narrative based on apriori commitments to an irrational materialism/reductionism.

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, another dimension or domain that is first, necessary being root of the world we share. Necessary being cannot be composed of separately existing independent parts, i.e. the realm is not physical but is its root. Further as we are amphibians with oracles transcending turing limits, we reflect that character. Yet more, as morally governed, we point to a root capable of framing moral government, inherent goodness and utter wisdom being requisites. As you full well know, historically we speak of soul, mind, spirit. Notice Anima-l, for a class of embodied creatures, where we are rational anima-ls, not merely instinctual and conditioned. More can be drawn out once we realise the first text of earth history is in the living cell in a cosmos fine tuned for such cells, implying domains of knowledge and skill as well as power adequate to frame worlds like that. KF

  81. 81
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, you just have faith that it’s true?

    As much faith that the Earth is not flat.

  82. 82
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, knowledge is perhaps best expanded as warranted, credibly true [and so, reliable] belief. Faith needs not be blind and is inextricably intertwined in the roots of our worldviews. KF

  83. 83
    Fred Hickson says:

    In response to Seversky’s:

    The only two scholars since William Paley who have made any credible attempt to place ID on a scientific footing are Michael Behe and William Dembski.

    the name Douglas Axe is offered. Remind me, what scientific work has Axe done that supports an ID paradigm. I’m not questioning whether he’s done some work on protein folding, just wondering how it supports ID.

  84. 84
    kairosfocus says:

    FH & Seversky: Start with the recognition, c 1953 on, that the cell has in it D/RNA, bearing algorithmic coded information stored in string data structures, i.e. text. So, language and stepwise, goal-directed process. Crick, Watson and co. Continue, also, starting 1953, with Hoyle and Fowler and the rising recognition of a fine tuned cosmos set at an operating point that facilitates C chem, aqueous medium, cell based life. Multiply by the discoveries in communication, information and computing, names like Nyquist, Hartley, Shannon, von Neumann, Turing etc come to mind. For example, pulse code modulation traces to 1939. Bring in the growing recognition that statistical thermodynamics is not merely analogously but structurally tied to information [or its lack]. You have a climate of results that logically lead to the well supported inference that cell based life has hallmarks of design, indeed, FSCO/I on trillions of observed cases reliably comes from intelligently directed configuration, with no good counter examples. Further to this, cosmological fine tuning supports a deeper design inference and sets a context for evaluating the design evident in the cell. So, that there is a design movement is unsurprising and that it would be opposed by those committed to Lewontin-style a priori evolutionary materialism is equally unsurprising. But the weight of evidence supports what is unwelcome to the new magisterium, design. KF

    PS, As I have noted, J B S Haldane, crossed with Turing and others down to Smith, points to our own rational responsible freedom to think and be credible in thinking, warranting and knowing points to our being oracle machines, with a two-tier controller in the cybernetic loop. The higher order element, being non algorithmic, escaping the Turing computational substrate bound. So, we have strong reason to think our own rationality is evidence that there is another dimension of reality that transcends material computationalism.

  85. 85
    ET says:

    Earth to Fred- what work has anyone done that supports the blind watchmaker, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes paradigm? Be specific or admit that you are a clueless hypocrite.

  86. 86
    Fred Hickson says:

    There’s a third option. Mainstream science continues happily ignoring the ID movement (is that becoming an oxymoron?).

    Anyone else able to tell me about Axe’s work and how it supports an ID inference?

  87. 87
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed

    Throughout his distinguished and unconventional career, engineer-turned-molecular-biologist Douglas Axe has been asking the questions that much of the scientific community would rather silence. Now, he presents his conclusions in this brave and pioneering book. Axe argues that the key to understanding our origin is the “design intuition”—the innate belief held by all humans that tasks we would need knowledge to accomplish can only be accomplished by someone who has that knowledge. For the ingenious task of inventing life, this knower can only be God.

    Starting with the hallowed halls of academic science, Axe dismantles the widespread belief that Darwin’s theory of evolution is indisputably true, showing instead that a gaping hole has been at its center from the beginning. He then explains in plain English the science that proves our design intuition scientifically valid. Lastly, he uses everyday experience to empower ordinary people to defend their design intuition, giving them the confidence and courage to explain why it has to be true and the vision to imagine what biology will become when people stand up for this truth.

    Armed with that confidence, readers will affirm what once seemed obvious to all of us—that living creatures, from single-celled cyanobacteria to orca whales and human beings, are brilliantly conceived, utterly beyond the reach of accident.

    “Probably the most engaging book I have read in the past ten years, because of Dr. Axe’s clear explanations and profound insights. This is an important book, perhaps the best one in existence, for anyone who takes origins questions seriously, whatever their perspective.” — Chuck Garner, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Baylor University

    “Axe has carefully crafted a case that strongly favors our human intuition that life was designed, demonstrating why unguided evolution is improbable in the extreme. This book’s power to convince surpasses that of everything I’ve read on origins science in my sixty-five years as an engineer, biophysicist, and physiologist.” — Mark C. Biedebach, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Sciences, California State University, Long Beach

    “Undeniable makes a compelling case by a molecular biologist that living organisms were designed by an intelligent agent, i.e. God. A decisive blow at the foundations of the materialistic explanations of the origin and diversity of life’s forms that have dominated biology for 200 years.” — Donald Ewert, PhD, Director of Research at the Hough Ear Institute and Former Wistar Institute Research Scientist

  88. 88
    Querius says:

    Silver Asiatic @87,

    Thanks for sharing the summary of Douglas Axe’s brilliant work in response to yet another of Fred Hickson’s “homework assignments.”

    What I appreciate about Douglas Axe’s work is that he supports his assertions with what scientific evidence from a strong technical background rather than an ideological position supported by speculation of what mighta, coulda, or musta happened.

    -Q

  89. 89
    Fred Hickson says:

    SAs hagiographical citation doesn’t answer my question. How does Axe’s work with protein folds support a “Design” inference?

  90. 90
    ET says:

    Fred:

    How does Axe’s work with protein folds support a “Design” inference?

    I know that you won’t understand this, but, here goes:

    Given TWO contrasting/ contradicting scenarios, intelligently designed or not, evidence against one supports the other.

  91. 91
    ET says:

    This alleged “mainstream science” doesn’t have a scientific explanation for our existence. They can’t even formulate a scientific theory of evolution! They can’t even tell us what determines biological form!

    Perhaps they should be ignored.

  92. 92
    Silver Asiatic says:

    FH

    Remind me, what scientific work has Axe done that supports an ID paradigm.

    I post reviews of his book from several scientists indicating the scientific work that Axe has done to support the ID paradigm.

    Fred replies:

    [it didn’t] answer my question. How does Axe’s work with protein folds support a “Design” inference?

    Yes, you’ll wonder why I didn’t answer the new question you now posed here after I answered your first one.

    In a letter to New Scientist, Doug Axe wrote:

    I have in fact confirmed that these papers add to the evidence for ID. I concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails “severe sequence constraints”. The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design.

    Sequences can be created by intelligence. There are a rare number that can form working enzymes and therefore there is less probability that they were created by chance and more support for an ID origin.

Leave a Reply