59 Replies to ““Design without Intelligence”

  1. 1
    Bombadill says:

    Should we be scared?

  2. 2

    Given evolution’s proven track record of inflated claims?

  3. 3
    Bombadill says:

    Good point.

  4. 4

    And if he DESIGNS an experiment which creates a mechanism which works, you have to look at how he does it pretty closely. It would take a lot of CPU power to completely represent everything.

  5. 5
    neurode says:

    I know I’m not scared. But then again, I could be missing the significance of these findings.

    (I mean, I understand how mutation can be accelerated in a computer. But for some reason, that doesn’t tell me how to accelerate natural selection, or arrange the existence of adaptive mutations, in nature.)

  6. 6
    Bombadill says:

    Right. I question how well these algorithms translate into the realm of biological systems. Is it really comparing apples to apples?

  7. 7
    IDEA_AASU says:

    ok….so basically he is proposing an ezyme with these capabilities…and such a thing doesn’t exist? brilliant!

  8. 8
    theSun says:

    well, i dont think natural selection gets accelerated, per se. it’s an environmental thing. Maybe the mutation rate gets increased, or previous muaions manifest.

    There’s a group of protiens called ‘shock protiens’, and heat shock protiens (HSPs) buffer mutations. That is, the weird little things take malformed protiens and wrench them back into shape.

    If you supress HSPs or stress the living things enough to use all their HSP at the development phase mutations previously supressed express all at once.

    The mutos run in lineages. Brothers are near identical, but cousins 14 times removed look very different.

    After a few generations of this the HSPs recognise the new form as normal and no longer maintain the original form.

  9. 9
    DaveScot says:

    Bacteria are already known to selectively accelerate mutation in times of stress. If we take it as a given that prokaryotes were precursers to eukaryotes I find it difficult to deny the same selective mutation capability to eukaryotes – the latter should have all the abilities of the former plus some.

  10. 10
    theSun says:

    OK, i’ll accept accelerated mutation, I’ve seen studies on shock protiens, so its possible, as similar circumstances prevailed. But you need to be clearer on the meaning of ‘selectively’, and cite papers showing it is selective.

    You see…selectively…is it reallly? Is it “protien X is under attack, I shall mutate genes 2344 to counter this?

    It’s cool, exciting. I like it. But I need the original papers to read. Source materials might clear up my questions..or make them bigger.

  11. 11
    paulp says:

    I’ll have to read the details but it seems that the poor guy gives the game away in the second paragraph of his home page. He writes,

    “The central idea is simply that many mutations are performed not as a result of a random error in genetic duplication, but as a result of this enzyme, which introduces mutations in a systematic way. It is proposed that a gene which produces this enzyme would provide a definite and inheritable advantage, which would give its carriers the selective edge over those dependent on a totally random mutation process.”

    As soon as he uses terms like ‘systematic,’ ‘provides a definite and inheribable advantage,’ ‘give…selective edge over’ he introduces goal talk–teleology–into his experiement. Goal talk is incoherent apart from mind so it’s odd how this process would be non-intelligent.

    Of course there’s the problem with the fact that he, as a computer programmer, has set up this whole game which is anything but non-intelligent.

  12. 12
    jmcd says:

    paulp

    I don’t see how he enters into teleology at all. He is describing a hypothetical natural process that would account for observed changes of pace in mutation. Nothing he talked about implied a goal just a means for adaptation.

    I also don’t see how it is a problem that a computer simulation might accurately represent reality. He designed a system with rules that is suppossed to mirror nature. If you are implying that such rules imply intelligence I would agree with you. Ultimately science cannot tell us whether or God exists. It can only tell us how our world/universe works.

    That seems to be a common notion. Many people think that evolutionary theory rules out the possibility of an intelligent design for us or the universe for that matter. It does nothing of the sort. What it does do is show that it is very likely that we are the result of natural processes and not a supernatural creation that appeared on Earth one day.

  13. 13
    DaveScot says:

    TheSun

    “But you need to be clearer on the meaning of ’selectively’, and cite papers showing it is selective.”

    Sure. I posted a handful of them in the comments immediately following the article:

    http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=404

  14. 14
    jboze3131 says:

    “Ultimately science cannot tell us whether or God exists. It can only tell us how our world/universe works.”

    if darwinists proclaim that evolution us goal-less, unguided, and purposeless…thats pretty much the same as saying there is no god. evolution, tho many will deny this, has to account for the origin of life- bioevo proclaims that it arose by itself and wasnt created…which means that god would have no role in life period. if he didnt create life at all, he had no role it evolving, etc.

    scientists constantly claim their theories make god impossible, then they contradict themselves and claim that god is outside the realm of science.

  15. 15
    Bombadill says:

    I know I harp on this a lot, but I think it’s worth repeating – beings who seem wired to ponder and seek purpose and meaning for their existance, seem unlikely to be the result of blind purposeless natural mechanisms. What a cruel mistake it would indeed, if that were the case. And again, the depth and panoply of emotion and sense of “I” that is the human conscious, seems to fly in the face of this materialistic philosophy.

  16. 16
    jmcd says:

    jboze3131

    You said: “if darwinists proclaim that evolution us goal-less, unguided, and purposeless…thats pretty much the same as saying there is no god”

    Thats not true at all. Who are we to try and define God’s purpose. When evolution is descibed as being “purposeless” it is meant that evolution does not represent a progression towards superior life forms. The ebiquitous image of a tree of life always puts humans at the top suggesting that we are life’s premier creation. It is more accurate to think of a shrub of life where we are but one species coexisting with many others. Even this does not mean that God has no purpose for us. It just means that we can’t look for purpose in science.

    If life did indeed arise by itself, that still does not take God out of the loop. For an environment to exist that allows for life to form, there have to be some pretty finely tuned natural laws in place. Our existence is either the greatest improbability imagined or we live in a universe designed to allow life to form.

    Our knowledge about the universe we live in will only continue to grow. Supernatural explanations for what we see in the world have always been proven wrong. I don’t think that it is such a big step to believe in a universe that is governed by natural laws while still believing in God. Scientists can say their theories show that God does not have to interact with us for us to explain what we see. What they cannot address is the author of the laws they study.

  17. 17
    testerschoice says:

    Bombadill,
    “And again, the depth and panoply of emotion and sense of “I” that is the human conscious, seems to fly in the face of this materialistic philosophy.”
    Oh Bombadill, let’s not start this again. So, where is this immaterial mind and how does it interact with the brain?

  18. 18
    jboze3131 says:

    tester- you never once showed brain scans showing THOUGHTS. you merely showed scans expose parts of the brain lighting up during certain activities. thoughts are still immaterial according to science…in the sense that, no one has made the connection. you seem to want to demand that the mind not even use the brain at all…and if it does, that proves that the mind itself IS the brain and nothing more.

    so, please show us where the material thoughts are. most scientists admit this is still a complete mystery. you keep linking to papers that merely show brain activity in regard to certain situations…that activity itself doesnt equal thoughts themselves. few in science would claim it does.

    JMCD-

    if theres a god who created some laws of the universe and then sat back and that was that- thats hardly a god worth caring about in any manner…let alone worshipping. intent and purpose- these are things that empirical evidence couldnt show, despite the claim that NS in evolution is just that- unguided, purposeless, meaningless, etc.

    its beyond science that such a claim is made. design can be inferred, and designed systems can be identified, but to proclaim a goal or purpose or intent of the designer- thats not science. neither is the claim of intent darwinists make.

  19. 19
    Bombadill says:

    “So, where is this immaterial mind and how does it interact with the brain?”

    Good question. I’ll let you know as soon as you tell me how that which is strictly physical produced that which is metaphysical. 😉

  20. 20
    testerschoice says:

    Bombadill,
    Nice nice, thanks for the philosophical cop-out. At least you are honest in your total lack of evidence.

  21. 21
    Bombadill says:

    It’s not a cop-out for me to point out that thoughts/propositions have never been reduced to a physical location in the brain. The point I’m making is that Neuroscience has yet to explain this immaterial reality.

  22. 22
    testerschoice says:

    Bombadill and Jboze,
    I propose: brain activity –> behavior

    You propose: immaterial mind –> brain activity –> behavior

    You have no evidence for you connection from mind to brain activity. I have presented evidence on not only the gross level but also the cellular level for brain activity correlating and causing thoughts. Can provide evidence for your connection between immaterial mind and brain?

  23. 23
    Bombadill says:

    The experiments I cited in the other thread which discussed this issue, demonstrated an immaterial mind which transcends the physical brain. Again, you have not shown how thougths & propositions can be reduced to the purely physical.

  24. 24
    taciturnus says:

    Missing from this discussion is why philosophers ever posited an immaterial mind in the first place. The reason goes back to Plato and may be called the problem of universals: If the number “5” can be applied to an infinite variety of materially diverse objects, then “5” itself is not material but transcends matter. It is a “universal”. The mind that understands not only 5 ducks or 5 bricks, but the number “5” itself abstracted from any particular matter must also transcend matter insofar as it understands.

    I’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation of how a purely material mind could understand universals. The discussion about correlations of thoughts with brain activity is interesting but does nothing to advance a solution…

    Dave T.

  25. 25
    testerschoice says:

    Bombadill,
    What you cited was NDE, which hardly justifies your position even by the admission of the authors of the paper you cited. The rest was philosophical arguments which amount to no observable evidence for your claim. Provide me with testable, experimental, observable evidence and I will take your point seriously.

    I guess my question is how would you falsify your claim for an immaterial mind? My claim can be falsified if it shown definitively that no possible physical mechanism could explain thought (or if evidence for an immaterial mind were to surface).

  26. 26
    jmcd says:

    jboze3131

    You are right. Science cannot make claims about intent or purpose. Those areas are strictly within the realm of religion. When scientists speak of a lack of purpose they are saying that there is nothing about the natural world that would lead them to believe that we are in anyway the culmination of a process meant to bring us about. In short evolution is not about us anymore then it is about any other living form, and there is no empirical evidence to suggesst that humans were an inevitable product of life on Earth. As to whether there is a larger purpose for us that the natural world does not suggest??? Well that is something that science cannot touch.

    Natural selection is certainly not a purposeless or unguided process. It is an amzingly elegant mechanism for ensuring life’s ability to form robust complex systems. Again when scientists say unguided they are saying that there is, as of yet, nothing that we know that would suggest that we are an intended end product of natural selection or that there is even such a thing as an intended product of natural selection. That simply means that there is not a purpose that we are capable of detecting. It does not mean that there is no purpose.

    I would say that you can infer design. An inference however is not science. Science cannot by its own definition deal with questions of design. We can say that a cell is designed but that does not mean that it was supernaturally created one day. That is where science has a problem with id. Saying that we can infer design and perhaps purpose is a fine philosophy of science. There is nothing that science is capable of saying that could ever contradict that. The problem with id is that it implies a supernatural creation at some point and such an idea is beyond the bounds of science. For one thing there is no reason for scientists to think that a supernatural creation was ever necessary. More importantly, such an idea is inherantly unscientific. In short, the notion of design is completely irrelevant to science.

    –To the larger question of whether or not such a god is worthy of worship–

    Scince cannot say anything about God. It cannot say that miracles are impossible. It can suggest that if they do happen they are rare and that they are not necessary to explain the universe. While I may choose to believe in a God that does not interact with us, that is certainly not an inevitable position for a student of science. We each have to decide where we want to place our faith. We can never prove any element of our faith. Faith is by nature a-rational. Science can’t touch it. If you choose to believe in a God that has domain over everyday events science cannot say you are wrong.

    Many people make the incorrect assumption that science is about the search for truth. This is absolutely false. Science is a group of disciplines that form thought structures that allow us to understand and manipulate reality as we experience it. Truth is the relam of religion or philosophy, and we all must eventually pick our own truths.

  27. 27
    theSun says:

    > For an environment to exist that allows for life to form, there have to be some pretty finely tuned natural laws in place. Our existence is either the greatest improbability imagined or we live in a universe designed to allow life to form.

    well I though about this playing DnD the other week (no connection except dice), how do you know any other values that the ones that allow human life could have arisen? I mean, what if these constants are the value they are because for (reasons unknown) they do not have the full range we could concieve of?

    without that knowledge, i wouldnt be able to make a guess at the probability of our universe, ot its improbability.

    so, that ‘either’ you insert strikes me as a false dichotimy, because it’s based on an assumption for which we lack evidence….if my logic is right.

  28. 28
    taciturnus says:

    “Many people make the incorrect assumption that science is about the search for truth. This is absolutely false. Science is a group of disciplines that form thought structures that allow us to understand and manipulate reality as we experience it. Truth is the relam of religion or philosophy, and we all must eventually pick our own truths.”

    Can we pick the truth that evolution is false and ID true?

  29. 29
    dodgingcars says:

    Actually, science should be the search for truth. If you don’t accept truth, then science shouldn’t matter, because then there would be no way to discover anything real or true about our universe.

    If all truth is subjective then science is nothing but an illusion and we can learn nothing from it.

  30. 30
    jmcd says:

    the Sun

    That is a definite problem. Many people, especially physicists, would take issue with my reasoning. It is called the Anthropic Principle. They would say that of course our universe has the necessary conditions to allow for our existence because we are here to talk about it. Chance is completely irrelevant.

    It still strikes me as amazing though that if gravity were just a little bit stronger or a little bit weaker the universe would have never had the opportunity to develop complex arrangements of matter. From that fact on there are just so many must haves for life as we understand it to exist that our existence seems to be beyond the realm of probability in my mind. This, to me anyway, indicates some sort of purpose or at least intent.

  31. 31
    jmcd says:

    dodgingcars
    There are different realms of truth we are talking about. Religion and philosophy search for universal truths about the nature of universe, creation or whatever you want to call it. Science searches for provisional truths that explain certain obsereved phenomena. Every “truth” science discovers has to be provisional because science does not consider knowledge to be absolute. Newton’s laws are provisional truths that accurately describe many situations. We all now recognize that the universe is much more complicated then he had the ability to imagine in his time. Einstein did not call Newton a liar but did generate a theory that accounted for a much larger degree of complexity in the unuiverse. Einstein did not however come closer to any absolute truth.

    That does not, in any way, make science subjective. It is all based on evidence and an objective reasoning that combines the evidence into a coherent narrative. A scientific theory’s value is based on its ability to accurately explain nature/the physical world. A theory provides a framework to understand a certain realm of nature that is testable and provides a platform for future conjectures-tests-theories.

    In essence Newton was not wrong. He just didn’t get the full picture. Almost certainly Einstein didn’t either. That does not make the discoveries they made an illusion. The fact that we are able to do this should be proof enough of that.

  32. 32
    jmcd says:

    tacitutrns
    “Can we pick the truth that evolution is false and ID true?”

    You can believe whatever you want. You would, however, be hard pressed to show that ID provides a more accurate framework for understanding nature and that it is capable of making material predictions about nature.

    Evolutionary theory does not represent an absolute truth about how nature works. It does do an excellent job of describing everything we know about life’s progression on Earth. For evolution to be abandoned altogether a theory would have to emerge that predicted everything that evolution has done successfully thus far and explain much of the questions that still remain. Again, it must also be able to make material predictions about nature. I do not see how believing that God or whatever designer you choose created life forms supernaturally allows you to predict anything. On the other hand evolutionary theory has allowed us to understand a tremendous amount about how diseases build resistance to our cures and has suggested novel ways of combating new diseases. It fits the fossil record, all geologic evidence, and the geographic dispertion of species. I have not yet seen how ID does any of that.

    There are elements that are in ET’s purview that it cannot adequately explain, and it is therefore certainly in need of refinement. I see no reason to scrap the theory altogether though, especially with no viable alternative.

  33. 33
    jboze3131 says:

    how on earth does bioevo fit with the fossil record? maybe PE sort of fits with it, but PE is so jumbled, it could fit ANY data- theyd just claim that stasis was the rule for this period and this group of animals, and leave it at that.

    as for your comments on ID, i realize why you say that it isnt science. you dont understand the theory.

    “I do not see how believing that God or whatever designer you choose created life forms supernaturally allows you to predict anything.”

    thats not what ID says at all.

  34. 34
    jmcd says:

    jboze3131

    Then by all means please enlighten as to what id says and how that could make predictions

  35. 35
    testerschoice says:

    Jboze,
    “thats not what ID says at all. ”
    Then please, tell us what ID says.

    ps. I am still waiting to find out how ID figures out who the designer is and how the designer created?

  36. 36
    jmcd says:

    jboze3131

    The progression of species according to the fossil record in no way violates ET. Et for instance predicted that whales are a product of a mammalian species returning to the sea and the fossil record has recently provided excellent evidence for this. The changes in the horse family as evidenced by the fossil record have occurred according to what ET would predict. The changes in primates are also inline with Darwin’s predictions. There is nothing in the fossil record that disputes ET. I have read some creationist misinterpretations of fossils that I will be happy to illuminate for you if you throw any of those my way.

  37. 37
    taciturnus says:

    jmcd,

    Evolution isn’t merely a model of how the universe works like Newton’s theories or relativity. Models can be “kind of” true and approximately accurate. Evolution, as an historical science, makes factual statements about history that are either true or false. Either man and apes have a common ancestor or they do not. If they do, evolution is true. If they do not, evolution is false.

    The small scale changes you mention with respect to resistance of microbes are uncontroversial and are genuinely scientific. But the theory of evolution isn’t really about them. It’s about extrapolating way beyond them, and back in time, to the assertion that all life descended from simpler forms of life. Scientific models may be approximately accurate… history is either true or false.

    Dave T.

  38. 38
    taciturnus says:

    jmcd,

    Is there any conceivable fossil that might be found that would lead you to conclude that the fact of common descent is false?

  39. 39
    jboze3131 says:

    “ps. I am still waiting to find out how ID figures out who the designer is and how the designer created? ”

    proving that you, as well, have no idea what ID is.

  40. 40
    jboze3131 says:

    jmcd- youre doing exactly what i explained the problem was. youre writing the narrative then stuffing the fossils into the story. whale evolution and horse evolution are bad examples- even some whale experts dont agree that your version of the record is what truly happened.

    as for ape to man. we dont have a gentle change from ape to man and the missing link is still missing. we have a few fossils that too many want to demand are human or part human, as opposed to merely chimp. another example of wanting to fit the evidence into the preconceived story.

    the only theory that might fit with the record is PE. no one can reasonably claim that there were small changes in the record. the record is full of forms coming into appearance out of nowhere without any links to the past. which is why gould and others even came up with PE, but the problem with this version of bioevo is that it can fit ANY fossil into the theory and claim its correct. you just simply claim that we cant see the intermediates because the changes were massive and quick and left no trace! sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.

  41. 41
    jmcd says:

    tacitutrns
    If you could show me a mammal from 500 millionm years ago or a human from60 million years ET would be in some serious trouble.

  42. 42
    jmcd says:

    jboze3131

    Are you denying the existence of homo erectus, Neanderthals, and every other “intermediate” species?

  43. 43
    jboze3131 says:

    umm. i hate to break it to ya, but no one considers neanderthals intermediates, considering we know that they lived at the same time as modern humans.

  44. 44
    jmcd says:

    In the historical regard I would have to say that it appears, based on what we know, that there is indeed common ancestry. Can I or anyone else ever prove this? No. Do I have ANY reason to believe in supernatural creation? No.

    So I am left with a theory that at least fits the facts even if it cannot be proven, or I choose to believe pure, groundless supposition.

  45. 45
    jboze3131 says:

    you keep saying supernatural creation which is NOT what ID is.

  46. 46
    theSun says:

    > umm. i hate to break it to ya, but no one considers neanderthals intermediates, considering we know that they lived at the same time as modern humans.

    that isnt why they are not considered intermediaries, they are not intermeds because they went extinct. No offspring, nothing to evolve into. simple.

  47. 47
    jmcd says:

    The most common factor in making unreasonable assumptions about the fossil record is that people fail to realize just how rare fossils are. An animal has to die under some very specific conditions to be fossilized. Most species will not leave a single fossil. You can ignore the coherency ET offers but the fact remains that we know of nothing that can dispute it.

  48. 48
    jboze3131 says:

    thesun- that is precisely why they cannot have possibly been intermediates. you cant be an intermediate of something that is around the very same time you are.

    we know of nothing to dispute ET with the fossil record? we have numerous fossil finds that continue to demand a change in the record, the timeline, etc. we have fossil finds that show more complex creatures in earlier layers than the less complex in the later layers. we have, as gould said, a “lack of clear order and progress through time among marine invertebrate faunas”- which surely disputes ET in this regard. Many have mentioned the fact that there seem to be no precursors to apes in general, especially chimps…and the human line is changed every few yrs with new finds that must be crammed into the preconceived story, often times the less complex featured hominids are later in the record than the more complex featured forms earlier in the record- the opposite of what ET would have in the record.

    examples are abundant of items that seem to make the fossil record hard to use. youre now talking about how fossils are rare, because theres a lack of evidence of true transitionals. its a nice move- if the evidence doesnt exist, theres no way to claim its not true.

  49. 49
    jmcd says:

    jboze3131
    I know that Neanderthalscoexisted with us. I also know that there is no such thing as an “intermediate species.” It is a term invented by creationists and fails to recognize how and why new species form. Species form through geographic isolation, change in resource availaility, or any other change in environment that necessitates a physical change within a species. A new species is a new species. It is not an intermediate between an old species and a species that may exist sometime in the future.

  50. 50
    jboze3131 says:

    okay, so now youre changing your story to say that there is no such thing as an intermediate?

    youre the same guy who keeps attacking ID, yet you continue to claim ID is an appeal to a supernatural designer.

    let me get this straight then. youre saying there truly are no intermediates between the purely hpothetical ancestor of chimps and humans. correct? you cant have it both ways.

  51. 51
    jmcd says:

    jboze3131
    “we have fossil finds that show more complex creatures in earlier layers than the less complex in the later layers”
    “often times the less complex featured hominids are later in the record than the more complex featured forms earlier in the record”

    These quotes demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of ET. It is not a progression from simple to complex. ET is blind to complexity. That is what is meant when evolution is labled as goaless, purposeless. Scientists are trying to combat the notion that evolution has a drive towards complexity and therefore presumably us. There is not a problem with less complex species arriving later. Suppose species A becomes permenantly seperated into two distinctly different ecosystems. This creates species A and species B. Say the environmernt species B is particularly harsh and rewuires greater cognitive abilities to survive. Species B will overtime become more intelligent and consequenlty more complicated.

    Back in the homeland species A has had to change little. For some time lowered ocean levels allow it to travel to what had formerly been an island with a very similar ecosystem. At some point this land bridge is once again swallowed by the ocean. After thousands of years the island remnant of species A begins to decrease in stature just like every other species on thew island and eventually forms species C. C has not had to change its ways since the time it was an A and has therefore not become anymore complex.

    Species B will be older then species C but B will be more complex due to environmental demands.

    The point is evolution is not a process of improvement but a mechanism to allow life to survive on an ever changing world.

  52. 52
    jmcd says:

    jbose3131

    There are species between the chimp/human node and our current species. You can call them intermediate if you want but that word is charged with the afore mentioned problem.

    If id does not imply supernatural creation at some stage then how does it propose species change? That is the question that I have not seen answered.

  53. 53
    jboze3131 says:

    “The point is evolution is not a process of improvement but a mechanism to allow life to survive on an ever changing world.”
    ———-

    that statement makes no sense. life will survive better as it gets more complex as it improves its ability to survive. which, in itself, is circular reason…but thats definitely the claim of ET. complexity clearly equals better ability to reproduce- which is the sole purpose of life according to ET. to survive, aka to reproduce. those which are more complex reporoduce more, survive longer, etc.

  54. 54
    jboze3131 says:

    if the mechanism isnt NS its automatically labeled “supernatural”?? im not sure how that logic works.

    they are intermediates by nature of the definition of the process. species will gradually mutate their dna and change over time…which allows newer, more advanced (more able to survive) species which will came later. thus, intermediates.

  55. 55
    Bombadill says:

    There’s still the problem of the sudden appearance of millions of novel body plans, seemingly out of nowhere, during the Cambrian period. And the fact that there was insufficient time for NS + UM to do it’s thing. Plus the fact that NS + UM has not been demonstrated to be able to produce beneficial mutations which would lead to said body plans, etc… etc…

  56. 56
    taciturnus says:

    jmcd,

    “If you could show me a mammal from 500 millionm years ago or a human from60 million years ET would be in some serious trouble.”

    Do you mean that the theory of universal common ancestry would be dismissed as false, or that scientists would have to revise how they think it happened?

    Dave T.

  57. 57
    pmob1 says:

    It was only a matter of time before someone came up with “ultra-smart enzymes” to replace the fusty old “plain vanilla smart” regulatory enzymes. Why not “smart bosons” and “smart fermions,” “systematic quarks.” On the macro scale, neo-pagans “sense” the “wise force” of the Earth-Mother. It all begs the question. Where did the information come from? Of Dawkins and mutationengineer we may note, they flee from bio-matter as fast as ever they can. Darwinism is literally disappearing into a series of computer simulations. It’s the first comp-tech paradigm suicide.

  58. 58
    pmob1 says:

    testerschoice,

    I’ll try again. In 22, you say “I have presented *evidence* on not only the…”

    I am willing to concede that a brain, gross and cellular, did cause and correlate with a particular thought, which we shall name “evidence,” or “evidence thought 61-B.” However, I do not believe any further conclusion can be drawn from this since there is no discrete “you” to do the drawing of it. Also, conclusions typically involve “proposition thoughts” and “inference thoughts.” For most of us, this is not a problem but in your case, there is no discrete concluder available to assemble them in preparation for judgment. They are bio-chemical events referring each only to itself.

    However, if there is any further relevance in this item, perhaps you could tell me what it is and how “you” arrived at it.

  59. 59
    jay says:

    Re: jmcd in post #26:
    “As to whether there is a larger purpose for us that the natural world does not suggest??? Well that is something that science cannot touch…there is not a purpose that we are capable of detecting. It does not mean that there is no purpose.” Yet many Darwinists say that evolution by RM+NS is purposeless. Why would they do that?
    “An inference however is not science.” By what absurd, self-serving definition? When one infers that an asteroid crash killed off the dinosaurs based on the evidence, it’s not science? Inferences are used all the time in science.
    “The problem with id is that it implies a supernatural creation at some point and such an idea is beyond the bounds of science…For one thing there is no reason for scientists to think that a supernatural creation was ever necessary. More importantly, such an idea is inherantly unscientific.” What about the big bang? Everything in nature came from nothing. How does that happen without reference to something beyond nature?
    “we all must eventually pick our own truths” Ah, yes, Pilatean relativism (“What is truth?”) If you reject absolute truth, you have no basis to believe anything. How does one perform the calculations needed for science? 2 + 2 = 5, anyone?

Leave a Reply