Design inference Evolution Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity

Jonathan McLatchie vs. Keith Fox: Has ID stood the test of time?

Spread the love

Saturday 24th February 2018 – 02:30 pm

Seems to be up now in EST. Audio:Premier Christian Radio:

A bacterial flagellum acts as the outboard motor on a bacteria. But is the complex arrangement of parts that enable it to do its job a result of design or evolution? Michael Behe first opened the debate on the ‘irreducible complexity’ of biochemical machines in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box.

Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan McLatchie and theistic evolutionist Keith Fox debate whether Behe’s theory has stood the test of time, the bacterial flagellum and whether ID is a science stopper or theologically helpful. More.

Comment: Given that most traditional science greats believed that they lived in a meaningful universe that showed evidence of design, the idea obviously isn’t a science stopper. By contrast, Darwin’s horrid doubt, that our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth, will destroy science by enabling the post-modern war on measurement.

See also: Live webinar with Robert Marks, Baylor U, on artificial intelligence and human exceptionalism (with Jonathan McLatchie)

110 Replies to “Jonathan McLatchie vs. Keith Fox: Has ID stood the test of time?

  1. 1
    LocalMinimum says:

    Science stopper: Everything came from nothing instantly some time ago and made all that is or will be. Everything that didn’t happen here happened somewhere we’ll never be able to visit or even observe so there’s no reason why. Gravity did it.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Jonathan M. has now loaded last week Marks’s video up on Youtube:

    Artificial Intelligence and Human Exceptionalism: Dr. Robert Marks – video (Feb. 2018)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvAg-NY5eQ

    Related notes

    Podcast: (AI) Robert Crowther “Why Artificial Intelligence Will Never Replace Humanity,” Interview with Robert J Marks, ID the Future, December 18, 2017.
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2017/12/why-artificial-intelligence-will-never-replace-humanity/

    Podcast: (AI) Robert Crowther “The Dangers, Limits and Promise of Artificial Intelligence.” Interview with Robert J Marks, ID the Future, January 8, 2018.
    https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2018/01/the-dangers-limits-and-promise-of-artificial-intelligence/#more-33468
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/evolutionary-informatics-has-come-a-long-way-since-a-baylor-dean-tried-to-shut-down-the-lab/

    Podcast – Don’t Raise the White Flag to Our AI Overlords Just Yet – January 22, 2018
    https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2018-01-22T08_58_45-08_00
    On this episode of ID The Future, computer engineer Robert Marks,,, Yes, computing power doubles every couple of years or so, but Dr. Marks insists that a qualitative gulf separates humans from computers, a difference that no amount of computing power can ever overcome.

    Robert Marks on the Lovelace Test – January 23, 2018,
    Marks explains the Lovelace test which, unlike the better-known Turing test, focuses precisely on this hard limit to what computer algorithms can do. AI cannot, in this sense, truly create.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/robert-marks-on-the-lovelace-test/

    Of particular interest from the following article by Marks is this 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.,,,”

    Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017
    Excerpt: There exists no (computer) model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Period. By “model,” we mean definitive simulations or foundational mathematics required of a hard science.,,,
    We show that no meaningful information can arise from an evolutionary process unless that process is guided. Even when guided, the degree of evolution’s accomplishment is limited by the expertise of the guiding information source — a limit we call Basener’s ceiling. An evolutionary program whose goal is to master chess will never evolve further and offer investment advice.,,,
    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.,,,

    Models of Darwinian evolution, Avida and EV included, are searches with a fixed goal. For EV, the goal is finding specified nucleotide binding sites. Avida’s goal is to generate an EQU logic function. Other evolution models that we examine in Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics likewise seek a prespecified goal.,,,
    The most celebrated attempt of an evolution model without a goal of which we’re aware is TIERRA. In an attempt to recreate something like the Cambrian explosion on a computer, the programmer created what was thought to be an information-rich environment where digital organisms would flourish and evolve. According to TIERRA’s ingenious creator, Thomas Ray, the project failed and was abandoned. There has to date been no success in open-ended evolution in the field of artificial life.5,,,
    We show that the probability resources of the universe and even string theory’s hypothetical multiverse are insufficient to explain the specified complexity surrounding us.,,,
    If a successful search requires equaling or exceeding some degree of active information, what is the chance of finding any search with as good or better performance? We call this a search-for-the-search. In Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, we show that the search-for-the-search is exponentially more difficult than the search itself!,,,
    ,,,we use information theory to measure meaningful information and show there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,,
    ,,, if the fitness continues to change, it is argued, the evolved entity can achieve greater and greater specified complexity,,,
    ,,, We,, dub the overall search structure ‘stair step active information’. Not only is guidance required on each stair, but the next step must be carefully chosen to guide the process to the higher fitness landscape and therefore ever increasing complexity.,,,
    Such fine tuning is the case of any fortuitous shift in fitness landscapes and increases, not decreases, the difficulty of evolution of ever-increasing specified complexity. It supports the case there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution.,,,
    Turing’s landmark work has allowed researchers, most notably Roger Penrose,26 to make the case that certain of man’s attributes including creativity and understanding are beyond the capability of the computer.,,,
    ,,, there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/

  3. 3
    critical rationalist says:

    Science stopper: Everything came from nothing instantly some time ago and made all that is or will be. Everything that didn’t happen here happened somewhere we’ll never be able to visit or even observe so there’s no reason why. Gravity did it.

    ID’s designer is an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable ream that works by inexplicable means and methods. ID is left with the same problem in that its designer now fits the criteria of needed to be designed, etc.

    A designer that “just was” complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins that would results in just the right features, already present, doesn’t serve an explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that organisms “just appeared” complete with the knowledge of which genes would result in just the right proteins that would results in just the right features, already present.

    You’ve just pushed the problem up a level without improving it.

    Making the initial conditions fundamental when they are intractable is a science stopper. Most of that isn’t relevant to what we really care about, which is to solve problems. What we want is to cause transformation to solve problems. That’s knowledge.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    ID is NOT about the designer. Your whining, while amusing, is meaningless.

  5. 5
    gpuccio says:

    ET:

    No hope with CR. He is one of the worst examples of stereotyped self-referential thought I have ever met.

    (With respect, CR. At least you are exceptional, in a sense! 🙂 )

  6. 6
    tribune7 says:

    CR –inexplicable means and methods.–

    How is that different than your claim?

    FWIW, ID doesn’t address the designer but only what can be observed and measured.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Intelligent Design proponent Jonathan McLatchie and theistic evolutionist Keith Fox debate whether Behe’s theory has stood the test of time, the bacterial flagellum and whether ID is a science stopper or theologically helpful.

    Behe’s initial claim was that there was no conceivable way that an organelle like the bacterial flagellum could have come about through incremental processes such as Darwin proposed for evolution. Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe’s claim.

    An omnipotent and omniscient ‘Designer’ is as much of a science-stopper as the equivalent God because it can explain anything. What point is there in looking any further if all questions can be satisfactorily answered by ‘God/Designer did it’?

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    LocalMinimum @ 1

    Science stopper: Everything came from nothing instantly some time ago and made all that is or will be. Everything that didn’t happen here happened somewhere we’ll never be able to visit or even observe so there’s no reason why. Gravity did it

    More like a science-pauser. WDK – we don’t know – yet – is a perfectly good answer. Anyway, why would any one expect that we have the answer to life, the Universe and everything after just a few hundred years of looking? At least the knowledge we do have we dug up for ourselves because we seem to be getting sweet FA in the way of help from the Designer/God.

  9. 9
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev:

    Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe’s claim.

    No they did not. That you think they did means only that you suspend your skepticism when it is necessary to cling to your cherished metaphysical beliefs.

  10. 10
    Barry Arrington says:

    gpuccio

    No hope with CR.

    Indeed. The “who designed the designer” canard has been dispatched countless times in these pages. Yet he seems to be impervious to reason. A truly sad case.

  11. 11
    critical rationalist says:

    @ET

    ID is NOT about the designer.

    Your pointing out ID is defined in such a way that makes it a bad explanation for the biosphere, doesn’t somehow result in it not being a bad explanation for the biosphere.

    Specifically, what is the origin of the knowledge the supposed designer would have put in organisms? If it didn’t possess that knowledge then did it spontaneously appear when the organisms were created? Is it the case that the designer “just was” complete with that knowledge already present? This makes ID’s designer an authoritative source of knowledge, which is bad philosophy.

    On the other hand, if the designer did posses that knowledge then it was well adapted for the purpose of designing organisms. It too meets the criteria for having to had been designed. How can being well adapted to serve a purpose (designing organisms) be an explanation for being well to serve a purpose?

    Furthermore, ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such, it’s a bad explanation for the biosphere. Example? Why did organisms appear in the order of least to most complex? That’s just what the designer must have wanted.

    Terraforming doesn’t explain this order because you’d have to assume the designer didn’t posses the knowledge of how to terraform a planet without starting with simpler organisms. According to you, ID isn’t about the designer, so that’s not an assumption you can made, either.

    Apparently, ID doesn’t say anything about the designer, except when it does?

  12. 12
    critical rationalist says:

    Indeed. The “who designed the designer” canard has been dispatched countless times in these pages.

    Who dispatched it? When?

    See above.

    Just as there are no non-physical examples of commuters, There are no non-physical examples of information.

    When we bring information into fundamental physics by defining via which tasks must be possible, which tasks must be impossible and why. This includes which tasks must be possibly to copy information, which ID’s designer must have done if it put the information there.

    Why is that important?

    Because it means the designer must have possessed that very knowledge in physical form. At which point, it represents the very same problem you claim need to be explained with a designer, etc.

  13. 13
    Barry Arrington says:

    CR:

    Who dispatched it? When?

    CR, you are an inveterate liar. If I thought you truly did not know the answer to that, I would respond to it. But you do.

    There is a reason we call them “Frequently Raised but Weak Arguments.” See https://uncommondescent.com/faq/#desdesnr

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Your pointing out ID is defined in such a way that makes it a bad explanation for the biosphere, doesn’t somehow result in it not being a bad explanation for the biosphere.

    And yet reality demonstrates that we do not have to knw who the intelligent designer was before determining it (intelligent design) exists. Reality says that we don’t even ask about the designing intelligence until after that determination is made.

    How do we know the ancients were capable of producing Stonehenge? The existence of Stonehenge. The point being is we know about the intelligent designers’ capabilities by what they left behind.

    Terraforming doesn’t explain this order because you’d have to assume the designer didn’t posses the knowledge of how to terraform a planet without starting with simpler organisms.

    And that is OK. Sometimes you have to make assumptions given your knowledge.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev states that:

    Behe’s initial claim was that there was no conceivable way that an organelle like the bacterial flagellum could have come about through incremental processes such as Darwin proposed for evolution. Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe’s claim.

    And herein lies the tremendous difference between the pseudoscience of Darwinian evolution and the science of Intelligent Design.

    Darwinists are wholly reliant on what they can imagine to be true, but are unable to ever experimentally prove to be true. Whereas ID advocates rely on what the can observe and experimentally prove to be true. Namely that only intelligent agents can create functional information and/or molecular machines.

    As Behe stated: “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish”

    EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES
    Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo.
    Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man.
    Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability.
    Biologist Michael Behe observes:
    “Some evolutionary biologists–like Richard Dawkins–have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Michael Behe – Darwin’s Black Box).,,,
    http://www.wayoflife.org/datab.....ories.html

    You don’t have to take Behe’s word for it. Gould, Mayr and Hughes all concede the reliance of Darwinists on ‘just so stories’,,

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    “Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science — the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
    Ernst Mayr – Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought – Nov. 2009 – Originally published July 2000

    “… another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness… Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling… it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…”
    — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism – The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

    And indeed, Darwinists have ZERO evidence of molecular machines coming into existence by Darwinian processes:

    ,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    *Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    “The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.”
    Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.

    Molecular Machines: – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: JME is a journal that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and is edited by prominent figures in the field.,,,
    In the past ten years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures. This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever.
    http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

    And where Darwinists have zero evidence of molecular machines coming into existence by Darwinian processes, on the other hand, ID advocates do have evidence of Intelligent agents creating molecular machines:

    2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry Points Strongly to Purposeful Design of Life – Michael Behe – December 6, 2016
    Excerpt: The 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to three scientists who built simple “nano” machines out of individual molecules.,,,
    Articles reporting on the Prize were filled with praise for the ingenuity of the scientists. Yet there was also an undertone of skepticism about the whole project. One German chemist foresaw looming technical difficulties, “I’ve always been a bit skeptical of artificial motors. They’re too difficult to make, too difficult to scale up.” An overview article remarked that “Some chemists argue that although these motors are cute, they are ultimately useless by themselves.” So far the nanomachinery hasn’t been put to any practical use,,,
    Many of the pioneers of the field drew inspiration from molecular machines discovered in biology such as the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like outboard motor that can propel bacteria through liquid. Yet the molecular machines laboriously constructed by our brightest scientists are Tinkertoys compared to the nanotechnology found in living cells.,,,
    ,,, right at this very moment sophisticated molecular robot walkers à la Star Wars are transporting critical supplies from one part of your cells to others along molecular highways, guided by information posted on molecular signposts. Molecular solar panels that put our best technology to shame are found in every leaf. Molecular computer control systems run the whole show with a reliability that exceeds that of, say, a nuclear reactor.,,,
    http://www.cnsnews.com/comment.....esign-life

    What is especially interesting in Darwinists being wholly reliant on imagination instead of evidence is that science, via experimentation and falsification, is SUPPOSE to reliably separate what humans imagine to be true from what is actually true.

    Yet, since Darwinists refuse to accept experimental falsification for their theory,,, such as the following experimental falsification,,

    Michael Behe – Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution – video – Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines
    25:56 minute quote – “This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    ,,,, Darwinists have simply abandoned experimental science altogether, and have thus forsaken any right they might have had to call their theory ‘scientific’ in the first place, but have instead wound up with a pseudoscientific theory along the lines of tea-leaf reading.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Of supplemental note: Earlier I quoted Dr. Marks in which he stated:

    “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

    That Darwinists have no mathematical model should not be all that surprising. Their simply is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon:

    Laws of science
    1 Conservation laws
    1.1 Conservation and symmetry
    1.2 Continuity and transfer
    2 Laws of classical mechanics
    2.1 Principle of least action
    3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
    3.1 Modern laws
    3.2 Classical laws
    4 Thermodynamics
    5 Electromagnetism
    6 Photonics
    7 Laws of quantum mechanics
    8 Radiation laws
    9 Laws of chemistry
    10 Geophysical laws
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

    Diffusion – image
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Diffusion.svg/220px-Diffusion.svg.png

    As the following video and paper show, entropy is a far greater problem for Darwinists than they are ever willing to openly admit in public.

    Evolution vs Entropy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGaSE-Q8nDU

    Genetic Entropy – references to several peer reviewed numerical simulations analyzing and falsifying all flavors of Darwinian evolution,, (via John Sanford and company)
    http://www.geneticentropy.org/#!properties/ctzx

    Thus in conclusion, Darwinists simply have no known scientific basis within the known physical universe to build a realistic scientific/mathematical model upon. And therefore Darwinian evolution, unless such a ‘law of evolution’ is ever discovered, will forever be reliant on ‘the gullibility of imagination’ in order to try to make their theory seem remotely plausible,

  17. 17
    LocalMinimum says:

    Seversky @ 8:

    I’m willing to accept your WDK; as long as it’s a fair and proper WDK. The whole super-material structure/spontaneously generated intelligence is fine but super-material intelligence is just wrong schtick gets sillier with every tiresome iteration once you know the game.

  18. 18
    LocalMinimum says:

    CR @ 3:

    Making the initial conditions fundamental when they are intractable is a science stopper.

    Which would well describe all of the “theories” I alluded to…with the difference being they’re specifically intended to be science stoppers, i.e. as an actual limit to what can be.

    God isn’t intractable as we acknowledge Them in being beyond our sphere of understanding, and thus in the realm of solutions to what we can’t understand.

    Of course, the universe being created by a Being beyond our understanding would not stand in the way of our chasing everything we can actually comprehend, so God isn’t even a science pauser.

    In fact, history would point to God as a science enabler. Well, perhaps Newton could’ve accomplished so much more if Neil deGrasse Tyson had a time machine to go back and straighten him out on the God stuff and teach him to properly pursue science.

  19. 19
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 15 –

    And herein lies the tremendous difference between the pseudoscience of Darwinian evolution and the science of Intelligent Design.

    Darwinists are wholly reliant on what they can imagine to be true, but are unable to ever experimentally prove to be true. Whereas ID advocates rely on what the can observe and experimentally prove to be true.

    So where are the ID experiments showing that the bacterial flagellum (for example) was designed?

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    per statistician Bob O’Hara at 19:

    Lecture by Dr. Scott Minnich – UC Santa Barbara 2005
    Drawing on his ten years of experience in working with bacteria as a geneticist, Dr. Minnich gives a thorough explication of the “irreducibly complex” nature of the bacterial flagellum. He explains this phrase that was coined by Michael Behe, and argues that the irreducibly complex construction of the bacterial flagellum is an outstanding case for an intelligent designer.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NXElnMuTPI

    Spinning Tales About the Bacterial Flagellum – Casey Luskin – January 21, 2010
    Excerpt: In contrast, pro-ID microbiologist Scott Minnich has properly tested for irreducible complexity through genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho. He presented this evidence during the Dover trial, which showed that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of thirty-five genes. As Minnich testified: “One mutation, one part knock out, it can’t swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We’ve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.”37
    https://evolutionnews.org/2010/01/spinning_tales_about_the_bacte/

    Engineering at Its Finest: Bacterial Chemotaxis and Signal Transduction – JonathanM – September 2011
    Excerpt: The bacterial flagellum represents not just a problem of irreducible complexity. Rather, the problem extends far deeper than that. What we are now observing is the existence of irreducibly complex systems within irreducibly complex systems. How random mutations, coupled with natural selection, could have assembled such a finely set-up system is a question to which I defy any Darwinist to give a sensible answer.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50911.html

    The Bacterial Flagellum: A Paradigm for Design – Jonathan M. – Sept. 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, so striking is the appearance of intelligent design that researchers have modeled the assembly process (of the bacterial flagellum) in view of finding inspiration for enhancing industrial operations (McAuley et al.). Not only does the flagellum manifestly exhibit engineering principles, but the engineering involved is far superior to humanity’s best achievements. The flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity in spades. In all of our experience of cause-and-effect, we know that phenomena of this kind are uniformly associated with only one type of cause – one category of explanation – and that is intelligent mind. Intelligent design succeeds at precisely the point at which evolutionary explanations break down.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/1067.....-Flagellum

    The Flagellar Filament Cap: Up close micro-photograph and animations of cap – Jonathan M. – August 2013
    Excerpt: We are so used to thinking about biological machines at a macroscopic level that it is all too easy to overlook the molecular structure of their individual components. The closer we inspect biochemical systems, such as flagella, the more the elegant design — as well as the magnitude of the challenge to Darwinism — becomes apparent.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....75101.html

    Amazing Flagellum – Scott Minnich & Stephen Meyer – 2016 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNR48hUd-Hw

    Bacterial Flagellum – A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    https://youtu.be/fFq_MGf3sbk

    Souped-Up Hyper-Drive Flagellum Discovered – December 3, 2012
    Excerpt: Get a load of this — a bacterium that packs a gear-driven, seven-engine, magnetic-guided flagellar bundle that gets 0 to 300 micrometers in one second, ten times faster than E. coli.
    If you thought the standard bacterial flagellum made the case for intelligent design, wait till you hear the specs on MO-1,,,
    Harvard’s mastermind of flagellum reverse engineering, this paper describes the Ferrari of flagella.
    “Instead of being a simple helically wound propeller driven by a rotary motor, it is a complex organelle consisting of 7 flagella and 24 fibrils that form a tight bundle enveloped by a glycoprotein sheath…. the flagella of MO-1 must rotate individually, and yet the entire bundle functions as a unit to comprise a motility organelle.”
    To feel the Wow! factor, jump ahead to Figure 6 in the paper. It shows seven engines in one, arranged in a hexagonal array, stylized by the authors in a cross-sectional model that shows them all as gears interacting with 24 smaller gears between them. The flagella rotate one way, and the smaller gears rotate the opposite way to maximize torque while minimizing friction. Download the movie from the Supplemental Information page to see the gears in action.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66921.html

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    And here the flagellum is shown to be subject to ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum effects. Non-local quantum effects simply are not within the reductive materialism framework of neo-Darwinism to explain.

    INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR
    Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito
    Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state.
    http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

    Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states – November 2011
    Excerpt: We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2126

    Besides the flagellum, ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement is now found to be pervasive within life, (i.e. within DNA, Proteins and RNA molecules):

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Do Darwinists have a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause to appeal to so as to be able to explain quantum entanglement in biological systems?,, (or to explain entanglement anywhere else for that matter?), No, they don’t! In fact, quantum mechanics falsifies the entire reductive materialistic framework upon which Darwinian evolution is based.

    “[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, …materialism is not.”
    Eugene Wigner

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.,,
    The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    Whereas, on the other hand, the Christian Theist has been postulating a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for life for a few thousand years now.

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

    Acts 17:28
    for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

    John 1:3-4
    All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    So where are the ID experiments showing that the bacterial flagellum (for example) was designed?

    All SCIENTIFIC experiments support the claim that all bacterial flagella were designed. And there aren’t any scientific experiments which demonstrate any bacterial flagella can evolve by means of blind and mindless processes.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    Behe’s initial claim was that there was no conceivable way that an organelle like the bacterial flagellum could have come about through incremental processes such as Darwin proposed for evolution. Biologists were able to suggest conceivable ways in which it could have happened thus refuting Behe’s claim.

    What pure trope. How does anyone know those biologists came up with a conceivable way? Just cuz they put it down on paper doesn’t make it a conceivable way. They have to actually test it and no one has ever done so

    What point is there in looking any further if all questions can be satisfactorily answered by ‘God/Designer did it’?

    So we can understand it, duh. We want to understand it so we can properly maintain and repair it. That said no one from your position is doing anything beyond declaring it evolved.

  24. 24
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 20 & 21 – I’m afraid it’s not clear from any of you comments which of those links describe the the ID experiments showing that the bacterial flagellum was designed. Can you be more explicit?

  25. 25
    ET says:

    As Dr Behe wrote in DBB:

    “Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    And all scientific experiments with all bacterial flagella demonstrate they all fit Dr Behe’s description. And there isn’t any evidence that evolution by blind and mindless processes can produce any of them.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Per Bob (and weave) O’Hara at 24:

    Although the bacterial flagellum (as well as other molecular machines) greatly outclass, in terms of engineering parameters, any machine man has built on the macro level,,

    Bacterial Flagellum (nearly 100% energy conversion efficiency)- A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design – video
    https://youtu.be/fFq_MGf3sbk

    ,,, much less any machine man has built on the micro level (for which Nobel prizes were awarded),,,

    2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry Points Strongly to Purposeful Design of Life – Michael Behe – December 6, 2016
    Excerpt: The 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to three scientists who built simple “nano” machines out of individual molecules.,,,
    Articles reporting on the Prize were filled with praise for the ingenuity of the scientists. Yet there was also an undertone of skepticism about the whole project. One German chemist foresaw looming technical difficulties, “I’ve always been a bit skeptical of artificial motors. They’re too difficult to make, too difficult to scale up.” An overview article remarked that “Some chemists argue that although these motors are cute, they are ultimately useless by themselves.” So far the nanomachinery hasn’t been put to any practical use,,,
    Many of the pioneers of the field drew inspiration from molecular machines discovered in biology such as the bacterial flagellum, a whip-like outboard motor that can propel bacteria through liquid. Yet the molecular machines laboriously constructed by our brightest scientists are Tinkertoys compared to the nanotechnology found in living cells.,,,
    ,,, right at this very moment sophisticated molecular robot walkers à la Star Wars are transporting critical supplies from one part of your cells to others along molecular highways, guided by information posted on molecular signposts. Molecular solar panels that put our best technology to shame are found in every leaf. Molecular computer control systems run the whole show with a reliability that exceeds that of, say, a nuclear reactor.,,,
    http://www.cnsnews.com/comment.....esign-life

    And despite the fact that the flagellum has been shown, per Minnich, to be ‘by definition, Irreducibly Complex’

    “One mutation, one part knock out, it can’t swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We’ve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.”37
    – Minnich

    And despite the fact that “the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics”

    INFORMATION AND ENERGETICS OF QUANTUM FLAGELLA MOTOR
    Hiroyuki Matsuura, Nobuo Noda, Kazuharu Koide Tetsuya Nemoto and Yasumi Ito
    Excerpt from bottom page 7: Note that the physical principle of flagella motor does not belong to classical mechanics, but to quantum mechanics. When we can consider applying quantum physics to flagella motor, we can find out the shift of energetic state and coherent state.
    http://www2.ktokai-u.ac.jp/~shi/el08-046.pdf

    ,,, in spite of all that, Bob (and weave) O’Hara still holds that he is personally unsure whether or not the flagellum was designed.

    In his denial of the evidence at hand, I hold that Bob (and weave) O’Hara is either self-deluded or else he is telling an outright bald-face lie.

    How can I be sure that Bob (and weave) O’Hara is either self-deluded or else he is telling an outright bald-face lie?

    Well, Intelligent Design is the default assumption or life. Darwinism started out as, and still is, a negative argument against Design. The ‘Design hypothesis’ was overwhelmingly accepted as true during Darwin’s day. Yet Darwin supposedly did away with the default assumption of design with his ‘designer substitute’ of Natural Selection.

    Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought By Ernst Mayr – November 24, 2009
    Excerpt: Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/

    Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer – Francisco J. Ayala – May 15, 2007
    Excerpt: “Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the ‘design’ of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,”,,,
    Darwin’s Explanation of Design
    Darwin’s focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full

    Yet, natural selection, as even Darwinists themselves now admit with their acceptance of ‘neutral theory’,,,

    Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017
    Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....heory.html

    In the main job description, under the heading The Deep Mathematical Theory of Selfish Genes, subheading About the project:
    ,,,”However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind.” This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.…
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....hemagician

    ,,, natural selection is now shown to be grossly inadequate as the supposed ‘designer substitute’:

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

    Thus, with the supposed ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection being cast to the wayside, (by Darwinists themselves no less), then the default assumption reverts back to Design, not to chance.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Even Dawkins himself admits that chance is absurd as an explanation for life:

    “it’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get something as complicated and as well designed as a bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance that’s absolutely out,, … so where does it come from it’s come from the gradual incremental process of evolution by natural selection.
    – Richard Dawkins
    http://www.yousubtitles.com/Fr.....id-1190953

    But to drive the nail home for my claim that Bob (and weave) O’Hara is either self-deluded or else he is telling an outright bald-face lie, it is now found that, despite what they may say to the public, the default assumption of professional scientists is one of Design:

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    i.e. It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature.

    I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans1:19-20

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  28. 28
    LocalMinimum says:

    Bob O’H @ 27: The way to overturn an epistemic impossibility is with a counter example, not appeals to the unknown.

  29. 29
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – you’ve now put up 4 responses, and still haven’t answered my question – where’s the ID experiment that shows that the flagellum was intelligently designed. Does this mean that there is no such experiment?

  30. 30
    ET says:

    All SCIENTIFIC experiments support the claim that all bacterial flagella were designed. And there aren’t any scientific experiments which demonstrate any bacterial flagella can evolve by means of blind and mindless processes.

  31. 31
    critical rationalist says:

    @Barry

    CR, you are an inveterate liar. If I thought you truly did not know the answer to that, I would respond to it. But you do.

    I’m a liar? You seem to have confused the existence of a entry about the question in a list and having actually dispatched it, as you claimed.

    Specifically, that entry doesn’t address any of my criticisms in #11.

    From the referenced entry….

    Intelligent design theory seeks only to determine whether or not an object was designed.

    The knowledge in organisms is the proximate cause. This is because the origin of the features of organisms is the origin of that knowledge. Saying a designer “had it” doesn’t explain that knowledge.

    Again….

    Specifically, what is the origin of the knowledge the supposed designer would have put in organisms? If it didn’t possess that knowledge then did it spontaneously appear when the organisms were created? Is it the case that the designer “just was” complete with that knowledge already present? This makes ID’s designer an authoritative source of knowledge, which is bad philosophy.

    If that knowledge spontaneously appeared, then in what sense did the designer actually design the organisms? And if it “just was”, one can more efficiently state that it just appeared. Neither explain anything.

    So, it’s only dispatched if one holds the narrow, philosophical view that knowledge comes from authoritative sources

    On the other hand, if the designer did posses that knowledge then it was well adapted for the purpose of designing organisms. It too meets the criteria for having to had been designed. How can being well adapted to serve a purpose (designing organisms) be an explanation for being well to serve a purpose?

    When we bring information into fundamental physics, the process of copying information, which is what the designer would have done if that information was not spontaneously created, requires specific construction tasks to be possible. That includes information being present externally before the copy occurred. Just as there are no non-physical computers, there are no non-physical instantiations of information.

    So, the designer, or some source of that information it had access to, would have the appearance of design. And, according to ID, it too would be identified as being designed, etc.

    Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out, the medical community consists of intelligent agents. They take actions with the intent and purpose of treating and curing diseases like cancer. So, why cant they just intentionally and purposefully impose their conciseness and arrange the bits on a thumb drive so it contains the cure for cancer?

    IOW, it seems to me that, if ID was true, we’d have the cure for cancer by now. But we don’t. So, what gives?

  32. 32
    critical rationalist says:

    @Barry

    More from the entry…

    Moreover, according to the principles of natural theology, the designer of the universe, in principle, does not need another designer at all.

    So, it’s been dispatched, by definition, if you happen to be a natural theist?

    From the time of Aristotle till the present, philosophers and theologians have pointed out that what needs a causal explanation is that which begins to exist. So, they have concludes that such a series of causal chains cannot go on indefinitely. According to the principle of “infinite regress,” all such chains must end with and/or be grounded on a “causeless cause,” a self-existent being that has no need for a cause and depends on nothing except itself.

    See the previous comment. And, causes need to be beings? This too is parochial.

    IOW, it’s been dispatched, but only if you happen to hold specific philosophical views that overlap with theism?

  33. 33
    critical rationalist says:

    @ET

    How do we know the ancients were capable of producing Stonehenge? The existence of Stonehenge. The point being is we know about the intelligent designers’ capabilities by what they left behind.

    That’s incredibly bad analogy. And, apparently, you don’t realize it.

    Stonehenge is not constructed over and over again by the process of replication. The knowledge of how to build Stonehenge was in its designer(s), not Stonehenge. It’s like a car, which needs a factory with workers and robots that posses the knowledge of how to build them. That knowledge is external.

    However, biological organisms do not roll of manufacturing lines of a factory. Nor do they spontaneously appear out of thin air. They are constructed by following a recipe of transformations to preform on raw materials. It’s a self-replicator.

    The origin of those features is the origin of that knowledge. Our current, best, universal explanation for the growth of knowledge is that it grows via variation controlled by criticism. This includes the growth of knowledge in the workers and the robots in the factory.

  34. 34
    critical rationalist says:

    @BA

    Whereas ID advocates rely on what the can observe and experimentally prove to be true. Namely that only intelligent agents can create functional information and/or molecular machines.

    Ok, so then why don’t we have a cure for cancer?

    Doesn’t the medical community consist of intelligent agents? Doesn’t it take actions with the purpose and intent to cure cancer?

    And when we do eventually have a cure for cancer, what will have been the delta between then and now?

    What will have changed?

    IOW, something in between then and now will have happened to make curing cancer possible. That missing piece seems to be a rather large hold in the theory of ID, in that it doesn’t add up.

  35. 35
    ET says:

    Stonehenge is not constructed over and over again by the process of replication.

    So what? Biological reproduction is irreducibly complex. Stones are constructed over and over again.

    They are constructed by following a recipe of transformations to preform on raw materials.

    Question-begging drivel.

    By the way, our current best explanation for knowledge is intelligent agents

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara, though he was provided several lines of evidence supporting the claim that the flagellum is indeed designed, still insists that he personally finds that there is no ‘experiment that shows that the flagellum was intelligently designed’.

    To which I can only echo ET’s bolded comment:

    All SCIENTIFIC experiments support the claim that all bacterial flagella were designed. And there aren’t any scientific experiments which demonstrate any bacterial flagella can evolve by means of blind and mindless processes.

    As was further highlighted in post 27, the default assumption has always been that life was and is designed, and, as was also shown, the Atheist’s ‘knee jerk’ gut level reaction is itself that life and nature are designed. As Crick himself noted:

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 138 (1990)

    Frankly, a more clear example of ‘suppressing the truth in unrighteousness(Romans 1:18)’ would be hard to find.

    And when looking at a cross section of DNA, it is easy to see why Crick had to “constantly keep in mind’ that what he saw was not designed

    cross section DNA – google search
    https://www.google.com/search?q=cross+section+DNA&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ7e_s78HZAhVRd6wKHdIVDZIQ_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=782

    Basically, atheists constantly fight tooth and nail insisting that the default assumption should be one of random chance instead of design, and even though many leading atheists themselves readily admit that life ‘appears to be designed’ for a purpose.

    living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”
    Richard C. Lewontin – Adaptation,” Scientific American, and Scientific American book ‘Evolution’ (September 1978)

    “This appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature…. Accounting for this apparent purposefulness is a basic problem for any system of philosophy or of science.”
    George Gaylord Simpson – “The Problem of Plan and Purpose in Nature” – 1947

    “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30

    ,,, and although they have ZERO experimental evidence to support the claim that such ‘appearance of design’ can be had through mindless processes,,,

    Talking Back to Goliath: Some Advice for Students in the Evolutionary Biology Classroom – Paul Nelson – September 30, 2014
    Excerpt: (if neo-Darwinism) is true, we should be able to find in the scientific literature the detailed explanations for the origin of complex structures and behaviors, rendered strictly in terms of random variation plus natural selection.
    Guess what? Those explanations aren’t there; they don’t exist. If anyone doubts this, he should try looking for himself. Choose any complex structure or behavior, and look in the biological literature for the step-by-step causal account where the origin of that structure (that is, its coming-to-be where it did not exist before) is explained via random variation and natural selection.
    You’ll be looking a long time. The explanations just aren’t there, and this fact is well known to evolutionary biologists who have become disenchanted with received neo-Darwinian theory. When proponents of the received theory, such as Richard Dawkins, face the task of making random variation and natural selection work, they resort to fictional entities like Dawkins’s “biomorphs” — see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) — or flawed analogies such as the “methinks it is like a weasel” search algorithm scenario. No one would have to employ these toy stories, of course, if evidence were available showing the efficacy of random variation and selection to construct novel complexity.
    “Research on selection and adaptation,” notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a disenchanted evolutionary theorist, “may tell us why a trait persisted and spread, but it will not tell us where a trait came from….This transformational aspect of evolutionary change has been oddly neglected in modern evolutionary biology” (2003, p. 197).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90141.html

    ,,, and although such a appeal to chance is patently insane,

    In a 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote:
    It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/

    ,,, despite all that, many internet atheists, such as Bob (and weave) O’Hara, are willing to toss their own sanity itself out the window if it means that they do not ever have to admit that life ‘appears’ to be designed for a purpose.

    And indeed, with the inherent denial of free will, and ones very own personhood, a denial that goes with the atheist’s materialistic worldview, insanity is all that the atheist is really left with when all is said and done.

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

    Basically, committed atheists would rather embrace insanity than God. And that is exactly what they will get in the end unless they come to their right minds:

    “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”
    – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

    And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality.

    Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Of humorous note: My unsolicited advice to Bob (and weave) O’Hara

    Don’t bob and weave
    http://muaythaipros.com/wp-con.....-weave.png
    Don’t duck either
    http://muaythaipros.com/wp-con.....t-duck.jpg

  38. 38
    Molson Bleu says:

    “My unsolicited advice to Bob (and weave) O’Hara.”

    You may think that this phrase is witty, but it is more indicative of childish immaturity. I have enjoyed many of your comments, but this one is beneath you. I will start scrolling past your comments if you persist in such childishness. You are better than this.

  39. 39

    MB @ 38: I find your comment to be pompous and condescending. I might have to start scrolling past your comments like I do to most of the other comments posted by a/mat preachers on this site.

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    MB oh golly gee whiz, I guess my only ‘mature’ response can be to tell you to go soak your head,

    https://goo.gl/images/EukYtE

  41. 41
    J-Mac says:

    It looks like Truth Will Set You Free has lost his touch with reality today… He first accused me of being a/mat and now Molson Bleu even though we both of us clearly indicated our belief in God more than on a hundred occasions…

    Go figure… Molson Bleu? Any clues? 😉

  42. 42
    J-Mac says:

    BA @40

    Or alternatively you can present MB with one of your related notes, such as the unshakable evidence of the Shrek of Turin… That should shut him up… The long-bearded, long-haired Jesus face imprinted on a piece of cloth plus the lamb writing next to it… This reminds me of the supposed paintings of Jesus I have seen all my life until one day my kids asked:How do we know that Jesus had long hair and beard? And it hit me… We don’t. It’s all an illusion… however persistent…

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    J-Mac at 41 and 42, funny that I’ve seen you attack Christianity on UD much more than I have seen you defend ID.

    The confusion with TWSYF, if any, is of your own making.

    It is clear that you have deep personal issues with Christianity, or more precisely the false beliefs you’ve believe about Christianity, that have severely clouded your judgment.

  44. 44
    Molson Bleu says:

    “MB oh golly gee whiz, I guess my only ‘mature’ response can be to tell you to go soak your head,”

    I suggest that we behave as mature adults and this is your response? Bob O’H has a fair question of you and you parody his name in response.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Molson, you are not the moral police of UD, for you to pretend that you are is pompous to put it mildly.

    So again, go soak your pompous head!

    https://goo.gl/images/EukYtE

    Moreover, Bob (and weave) O’Hara question was certainly not ‘fair’. For you to pretend he was anything other than disingenuous in his dismissal of the empirical evidence presented to him supporting the inference to design makes you part of the problem.

    Feel free to fulfill your promise and scroll past my posts, I can guarantee you that my feelings will not be hurt.

  46. 46
    Molson Bleu says:

    “Molson, you are not the moral police of UD, for you to pretend that you are is pompous to put it mildly.

    So again, go soak your pompous head!”

    Fair enough. But I have one question for you. Do you have a problem with people when they use the parody of your name that I have seen before? The one that starts with Batsh**? If you do, it just seems strange that you don’t have a problem doing it to others.

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm, I thought I smelled a rat. Perhaps you would like to elaborate a little more on that particularly odious character who has been banned quite a few times from UD, posting under various different pseudonyms until exposed each time?

    The Intelligent Design movement is religious creationism in a poor disguise and is really just an intrusive, dishonest, religious and political agenda. The people promoting and supporting it are insane, narcissistic, hypocritical, dishonest religious-zealots who want to control the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth.
    http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/

    And that is the nice stuff he has said about us. It gets worse, much worse!

    Of course, I’m sure you have been spared for whatever reason???

  48. 48
    Molson Bleu says:

    “Hmmm, I thought I smelled a rat.”

    Sorry, but I have never seen the site you refer to. But I will certainly check it out. I only mentioned the parody on your name after I looked at the site that KF had mentioned (after the bar closes) when he called it an animus site. When people make claims like this about other sites, I prefer to draw my own conclusions. That is the site where I saw this parody of your name used many times. But I still stand by my point. You are obviously offended by this parody, as I would be. Why you would chose to use a tactic against others that obviously offends you, is simply not something I would expect another Christian to resort to.

  49. 49
    Molson Bleu says:

    BA77@47. I took a very brief look at the site you linked above. All I can say is that whoever this person is has some serious issues. I have rarely seen such hatred paranoia and venom on any web site. I almost feel sorry for whoever wrote that nonsense.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Molson Bleu, for someone who regularly deems himself morally superior to others on UD, your moral judgement is not nearly as astute as you apparently think it is.

    I, with no personal animosity towards Bob, poked fun at Bob (and weave) O’Hara’s debating style. He basically ‘bobs and weaves’ to avoid addressing arguments honestly and directly. It is a humorous, good-natured, poke at him and his disingenuous debating style. You, apparently failing to distinguish this moral nuance, accuse me of attacking him in a personal manner (as your referenced troll regularly attacked UD bloggers in a very personal and degrading manner). That simply is not true. While I don’t respect Bob’s debating style, I’ve never attacked him personally.

    But to be clear, I was being fairly blunt, and personal, with you and your feigned moral superiority when I told you to go soak your pompous head.

    But, in my ‘moral’ judgment, calling you ‘pompous’ is far better than what Jesus Himself called the religious hypocrites of his day who thought they were morally superior to everyone else.

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “I have rarely seen such hatred paranoia and venom on any web site. I almost feel sorry for whoever wrote that nonsense.”

    For once we agree.

  52. 52

    J-mac @ 41: Tell me more about your theism. Any specific religion?

    BA77 @ 50: “I, with no personal animosity towards Bob, poked fun at Bob (and weave) O’Hara’s debating style.”

    That’s how I understood your comment. Levity is often good. The real offensive remarks on this site generally come from a/mats… and sometimes me.

  53. 53
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 50 – I find the “Bob (and weave) O’Hara” moniker irksome, especially as you are also accusing me of being disingenuous. You also claim no animosity. If there’s no animosity then why not try treating people with respect? That might help to raise the tone of the discussion here.

    I would honestly like to see some evident that ID researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure was designed. I hope you appreciate that this is not the same thing as asking if it could have evolved, or even providing arguments for why something had to have been designed (essentially I’m asking for one or several parts of that argument: the building blocks of it).

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “I find the “Bob (and weave) O’Hara” moniker irksome.”

    But alas, your feeling of being ‘irked’ by my comment on your disingenuous ‘bob and weave’ debating style, much like your belief that you really exist as a real person, is just an illusion foisted off on you by the particles of your brain. i.e. According to your Darwinian presuppositions, there is only a illusion of ‘you’ having an illusion of being ‘irked’ by some illusion of objective morality being tresspassed.

    “You” really need to come to terms with just how insane your worldview is. But alas, for “you” to be able to come to terms with your insane worldview presupposes that there really is a “you” that really is in control of your thoughts. But alas, only particles are real, the rest is all just a dream within a dream for “you”. There is no remedy for your insanity within Darwinism.

    A Dream Within a Dream
    BY EDGAR ALLAN POE
    Take this kiss upon the brow!
    And, in parting from you now,
    Thus much let me avow —
    You are not wrong, who deem
    That my days have been a dream;
    Yet if hope has flown away
    In a night, or in a day,
    In a vision, or in none,
    Is it therefore the less gone?
    All that we see or seem
    Is but a dream within a dream.

    I stand amid the roar
    Of a surf-tormented shore,
    And I hold within my hand
    Grains of the golden sand —
    How few! yet how they creep
    Through my fingers to the deep,
    While I weep — while I weep!
    O God! Can I not grasp
    Them with a tighter clasp?
    O God! can I not save
    One from the pitiless wave?
    Is all that we see or seem
    But a dream within a dream?

    Final note, as to your repeated false claim that I have provided no empirical evidence for ID, I stand by my posts in 20, 21, 26, 27 and 36, and particularly stand by my claim that you are either self-deluded or are telling a bald-face lie when you deny the design inference,,,, and furthermore, I am more than happy to let the readers decide for themselves who is being honest towards the evidence, and who is being disingenuous, even deceitful, towards the evidence.

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    I would honestly like to see some evident that ID researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure was designed.

    And we would honestly like to see some evident that evolutionary researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. But we all know that ain’t going to happen.

    Everything about all bacterial flagella scream intelligent design. They meet Dr Behe’s criteria and no one has any idea how blind and mindless processes could have done it.

  56. 56
    ET says:

    Ok, so then why don’t we have a cure for cancer?

    It looks like the researchers may not be so smart. If all cancerous cells use fermentation instead of respiration then it is clear what needs to be done- stop the fermentation process. Why hasn’t anyone done so?

  57. 57
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – let’s talk about disingenuous.

    Final note, as to your repeated false claim that I have provided no empirical evidence for ID, I stand by my posts in 20, 21, 26, 27 and 36,

    But that’s not what I asked for, was it? I asked for something more specific. I’m aware that to build a case for a theory you need to pull in different sorts of evidence, and I was asking for one specific sort of evidence.

  58. 58
    Bob O'H says:

    BTW, ba77, I do believe I exist. So please don’t tell me that I don’t. You don’t understand my worldview: all of your statements about my worldview in 54 are false (well, except possibly the one about it being insane, but if it is insane then it’s not for the reasons you state, as your reasons don’t match with my worldview).

    Oh, and if you want to respond by telling me what I should believe based on my “Darwinian presuppositions”, stop and think about whether your assumptions about my presuppositions might be wrong – your comments in 54 suggest to me that they are flat out wrong, I’m afraid.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    I stand by my posts, and also stand by my claim, for which I also provided empirical evidence, that you are being personally disingenuous in your denial of the evidence presented. i.e. Studies establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally suppress the design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    Moreover, it is extremely ironic that you want your personal subjective opinion as to whether something is designed or not to carry so much weight when your Darwinian worldview itself holds that your personal subjective opinion is merely an illusion. Why should I give two hoots what an ‘illusion’s opinion is? (as if illusions could have opinions in the first place!),,, If the particles of your brain happened to spontaneously arrange themselves in some other pattern, ‘the illusion of you’ would be of the illusory opinion that the evidence for design was overwhelming, and there is nothing that ‘you, as a illusory person,’ could do to change that opinion. As Mr Arrington said in his thread, for the Darwinian materialist, “the category “particles and the impersonal natural forces that move them” exhausts the possible causes for all phenomena”

    The materialist believes, by definition, that nothing exists but particles and the impersonal natural forces that move them. Therefore, the category “particles and the impersonal natural forces that move them” exhausts the possible causes for all phenomena. It follows that for any given action the collection of particles called “JVL” takes, that action was utterly determined by impersonal natural forces. Therefore, JVL has no free will.

    Again, all prominent materialists reach this conclusion (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, etc.).
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/93459/#comment-652278

  60. 60
    J-Mac says:

    52 @ Truth Will Set You Free

    J-mac @ 41: Tell me more about your theism. Any specific religion?

    Yeah, when your Cowardliness Will Set You Free…

  61. 61
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 59 – No, I don’t believe I’m an illusion. I don’t think you are either. I’ll ask you again – please don’t mis-represent my views. Neither you or Barry understand what I think, and I think it’s arrogant (at best) for you to pretend otherwise.

  62. 62
    J-Mac says:

    @ 43 bornagain77

    J-Mac at 41 and 42, funny that I’ve seen you attack Christianity on UD much more than I have seen you defend ID.

    The confusion with TWSYF, if any, is of your own making.

    It is clear that you have deep personal issues with Christianity, or more precisely the false beliefs you’ve believe about Christianity, that have severely clouded your judgment.

    I have a problem with falsehood; people or religions trying to support their preconceived ideas at all cost…

    If it is Christianity, ID or atheists, so be it…
    Truth should be able do defend itself…If it can’t, God help it!

    Who appointed you the judge of me?

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara, since you constantly defend the Darwinian worldview, I will hold ‘the illusion of you’ to the precepts inherent in that worldview.

    It is not my duty to assign Theistic precepts of personhood to someone defending the atheistic worldview. If you differ from atheists in some fundamental way, “YOU” have to make the point clear. You have not.

    I think it disingenuous of you to suppose otherwise. But alas, it is yet more evidence for your disingenuous ‘bob and weave’ debate style ..

  64. 64
    J-Mac says:

    @61 Bob O’H

    I’ll ask you again – please don’t mis-represent my views. Neither you or Barry understand what I think, and I think it’s arrogant (at best) for you to pretend otherwise.

    It’s a “Christian” way of misrepresentation, so it can’t be that bad…After all, it is for a good cause: the glorification of the “Christian truth”, as they see it and not as it really is…

    Can you argue with this “logic”?

  65. 65
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – I don’t know any atheists who deny the existence of the self. We may not have a good explanation for consciousness, but we don’t deny it exists. I honestly don’t see that the “Darwinian worldview” (whatever that is) denies consciousness and identity.

  66. 66
    bornagain77 says:

    J-Mac as to:

    “people or religions trying to support their preconceived ideas at all cost…”

    Like for instance, I don’t know, maybe someone citing evidence for Out of Body experiences as evidence against the validity of Near Death Experiences

    In fact, both Drs. Greyson and Lommel cited stimulated OBE’s as supporting evidence for the reality of NDE’s, whilst Dr. Egnor himself cites Penfield overall body of work of stimulating various areas of the brain as supporting the immateriality of the mind and/or soul.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-thought-about-justice-is-not-justice-easy-for-id-a-deal-killer-for-materialism/#comment-651182

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-thought-about-justice-is-not-justice-easy-for-id-a-deal-killer-for-materialism/#comment-651153
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/my-thought-about-justice-is-not-justice-easy-for-id-a-deal-killer-for-materialism/#comment-651164

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Bob, I really don’t care what ‘the illusion of you’ denies.

    I could cite many quotes from leading atheists establishing my position, but what is the point. You will just deny it anyway. Oh well, for the sake of readers, a few more from Einstein and Rosenberg:

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
    Paper:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SvgUc2xn5reoofYWQtb2kpgoP5HoxloffFg48qtf2ZY/edit

    “The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak.”
    [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide To Reality, Ch.9]

    To reiterate, I stand by my posts, and the evidence presented therein thus far, and am more than happy to let readers decide for themselves.

    The last word is all yours. Might I suggest some, any, empirical evidence that sophisticated molecular machines can evolve into existence from mindless processes, instead of just your usual subjective opinion as to whether you personally think the inference to ID is warranted or not, especially since “you”, according to atheistic materialism, really don’t exist as a real person?

  68. 68
    Bob O'H says:

    Well Bob, I really don’t care what ‘the illusion of you’ denies.

    If you think people are an illusion, then you have bigger problems. I don’t think I’m an illusion. I don’t understand consciousness (although I suspect it’s an emergent property of our brains), but I don’t deny it.

  69. 69

    J-mac @ 60: That’s exactly the response I expected, a/mat. Stop faking. Embrace your nihilism.

  70. 70
    tribune7 says:

    Bob

    I would honestly like to see some evident that ID researchers have done experiments to specifically test the hypothesis that some biological structure was designed.

    If you were going to design a test for the hypothesis how would you do it?

  71. 71
    Bob O'H says:

    t7 – I don’t know. I think it would depend on a model for how the design was done. For example, front-loading might be testable as it assumes that there is code in the DNA that is not yet functional, so it might be possible to detect that, and even turn it on. For other models of ID, I’ve no idea: I suspect the “the Designer just zapped in a new function” could be un-testable, although there might be some information in phylogenies to test it.

  72. 72

    Bob, you are playing a game of pure rhetoric. Experimental evidence demonstrated (decades ago) that the gene is a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code; very nicely fulfilling a logical prediction about such systems. The evidence supporting ID has only multiplied since that point. Hello? You’ve been on this blog for years, Bob, always playing the deadpan game. Does it really never get old for you? Moreover, is the “no evidence” shtick (in any of its various forms) really the best you’ve got at this point in the year 2018?

  73. 73

    Come to think of it, Bob, here again is the question I asked you a few months ago (which you ignored): At the point in earth history that the first ever aaRS was successfully constructed from genetic memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

  74. 74
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob at 71.

    Suppose someone were trying to determine whether your post at 71 was random letters generated by a computer or an actual message in English.

    Now suppose someone concluded based on the fact that the text has meaning within a code that it was in fact the product of intelligent design.

    Would the following be a valid objection: You are just saying Bob zapped that text right into the combox. That’s untestable; your conclusion is invalid.

    You would think that objection is idiotic. And you would be right.

  75. 75
    tribune7 says:

    Bob,

    James Randi has stopped his very wise and good paranormal challenge due to his age but consider this: Suppose someone beat it? Would that prove the paranormal or would that just mean someone managed to fool him?

    Or consider this: Suppose we tested ID by setting up cameras in some vacant wasteland to record whether complex specified information could arise by chance and nature, and our cameras record a huge earthquake, followed by a huge windstorm followed by another earthquake, and when all is stable we see the rocks spelled out very clearly “Dembski is right you idiots”.

    Well, under the ground rules of the experiment you have just disproved ID.

    So, so much for the powers of natural science 🙂

    What I would suggest though by way of a testable experiment is to find something of known design, a page of writing, or a paragraph, or even an average-length sentence, quantify for the characteristics of design, see if those quantifications hold for other objects of known design and then apply the quantifications to some biological entity.

    That would be potentially falsifiable at a least two points — whether the quantifications are accurate and whether the biological entity has them.

  76. 76
    tribune7 says:

    Barry, great minds 🙂

  77. 77
    Bob O'H says:

    Upright Biped @ 72 –

    Experimental evidence demonstrated (decades ago) that the gene is a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code; very nicely fulfilling a logical prediction about such systems.

    I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to explain that. Firstly, what do you mean by “a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code”? And also, how does that relate to ID?

    Barry @ 74 – I’m sorry, I don’t get your point. If you know how to test the “the Designer just zapped in a new function” theory (and I mean specifically test that theory, not another one), then I’d be fascinated to hear more.

    t7 @ 75 –

    Or consider this: Suppose we tested ID by setting up cameras in some vacant wasteland to record whether complex specified information could arise by chance and nature, and our cameras record a huge earthquake, followed by a huge windstorm followed by another earthquake, and when all is stable we see the rocks spelled out very clearly “Dembski is right you idiots”.

    Well, under the ground rules of the experiment you have just disproved ID.

    Eh? How do you come to that conclusion?

  78. 78
    tribune7 says:

    Bob,

    The claim is that nature and chance can’t create complex specified information and science prohibits a resort to “supernatural” explanations.

    Observing in realtime the creation of complex specified information solely via acts of nature would — ostensibly — disprove ID.

  79. 79
    Bob O'H says:

    “The claim”? What claim? That claim doesn’t say anything about anything being designed by intelligence. And finding CSI being generated wouldn’t disprove ID either – presumably a designer could make something that mimicked what could be produced by evolution.

  80. 80
    tribune7 says:

    “That claim doesn’t say anything about anything being designed by intelligence. ”

    The claim we are discussing is the one that says biological entities don’t need to be designed by intelligence because chance and nature can create the specified complexity that they exhibit.

  81. 81
    tribune7 says:

    Bob, what are you saying should be the conclusion of the experiment concerning the cameras in the wasteland?

  82. 82
    Bob O'H says:

    t7 @ 80 – sorry if there was any confusion, but that’s not the claim I was discussing. I specifically wanted to discuss the claim that some natural things were designed.

  83. 83
    Molson Bleu says:

    “Molson Bleu, for someone who regularly deems himself morally superior to others on UD, your moral judgement is not nearly as astute as you apparently think it is.”

    I never claim to be morally superior to anyone. At my best, I may be. At my worst, I definitely am not. In short, just like everyone else.

    However, when I see people commenting in a disingenuous or disrespectful manner, I do not hesitate to call it out as constructive criticisms. As I hope that others do when I step over the line, which I occasionally do. The fact that you took my comment so personally suggests that there was some merit to it.

    In your case all I said was that parodying a person’s name to discredit their debate style (Bob and Weave O’Hara) is childish. If you think that me pointing this out to you is pompous, then KF is guilty of the same thing whenever he calls people out for using the term “Gish Gallop”. Something that I think he is right to do.

    I meant it as a constructive criticism and I hoped that you would take it as such.

  84. 84
    tribune7 says:

    Bob

    I specifically wanted to discuss the claim that some natural things were designed.

    OK, by natural let’s restrict it to biological. Computer code, novels, movies, airplanes are also natural by my reasoning and obviously designed.

    So my argument is using items of known design quantify, as rigorously as we can, the characteristics as to what makes them designed and then see if they apply to biological entities.

  85. 85

    UB: Experimental evidence demonstrated (decades ago) that the gene is a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code; very nicely fulfilling a logical prediction about such systems.

    BO: I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to explain that. Firstly, what do you mean by “a symbol system using a genuine reading-frame code”?

    We needn’t pretend. You are aware that it was confirmed by experiment in 1961 that the genetic code is a reading frame code — read from a fixed point in three non-overlapping bases at a time.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    At the point in earth history that the first ever aaRS was successfully constructed from genetic memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

  86. 86
    Bob O'H says:

    At best that gets you to say that something might be designed, but things that are not designed might also have the same characteristics.

  87. 87

    things that are not designed might also have the same characteristics.

    Based on what evidence Bob? Show me a reading-frame code (where you know the provenance of the system) that arose by non-intelligent means.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    At the point in earth history that the first ever aaRS was successfully constructed from genetic memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?

  88. 88
    bornagain77 says:

    at 71 Bob (and weave) O’Hara states:

    For example, front-loading might be testable as it assumes that there is code in the DNA that is not yet functional, so it might be possible to detect that, and even turn it on. For other models of ID, I’ve no idea: I suspect the “the Designer just zapped in a new function” could be untestable, although there might be some information in phylogenies to test it.

    at 78 tribune7 rightly observes

    Observing in realtime the creation of complex specified information solely via acts of nature would — ostensibly — disprove ID.

    at 79 Bob (and weave) O’Hara retorts:

    finding CSI being generated wouldn’t disprove ID either – presumably a designer could make something that mimicked what could be produced by evolution.

    Bob’s notions of how science works are a muddled mess. He appeals to something nobody has ever seen, namely the creation of Information by natural processes, to try to basically say, “Well, if we saw information being created by natural processes it wouldn’t strictly falsify ID because God could work through nature.”

    Yet despite Bob’s belief that hypothetical situations in science should take precedence over known situations in science, science, regardless of what Bob wants to believe, works primarily by experimentation and falsification.

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    In fact, since Darwinian evolution has no strict falsification criteria as other sciences, including ID, have, Popper also stated this in regards to Darwinism: “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

    Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution By John Horgan on 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/

    Whereas on the hand, to experimentally falsify the claims of ID (as well as to experimentally validate the claims of Darwinists at the same time), and earn oneself up to 5 million dollars to boot, all one needs to do is “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”

    The Origin of Information: How to Solve It – Perry Marshall
    Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community:
    “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
    “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer.
    A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 5 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research.
    http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/

    As mentioned previously in post 16, the reason why Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience instead of a science is that Darwinian evolution has no mathematical model to test against. As Dr Robert Marks states ““there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,”

    “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

    As was also mentioned in post 16, the reason why nobody has ever been able to build a realistic mathematical model for Darwinian evolution is simply because there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for mathematicians and physicists to build a realistic mathematical model upon:

    Laws of science
    1 Conservation laws
    1.1 Conservation and symmetry
    1.2 Continuity and transfer
    2 Laws of classical mechanics
    2.1 Principle of least action
    3 Laws of gravitation and relativity
    3.1 Modern laws
    3.2 Classical laws
    4 Thermodynamics
    5 Electromagnetism
    6 Photonics
    7 Laws of quantum mechanics
    8 Radiation laws
    9 Laws of chemistry
    10 Geophysical laws
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

    As Ernst Mayr himself conceded, “In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.”

    The Evolution of Ernst: Interview with Ernst Mayr – 2004 (page 2 of 14)
    Excerpt: biology (Darwinian Evolution) differs from the physical sciences in that in the physical sciences, all theories, I don’t know exceptions so I think it’s probably a safe statement, all theories are based somehow or other on natural laws. In biology, as several other people have shown, and I totally agree with them, there are no natural laws in biology corresponding to the natural laws of the physical sciences.
    ,,, And so that’s what I do in this book. I show that the theoretical basis, you might call it, or I prefer to call it the philosophy of biology, has a totally different basis than the theories of physics.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/0004D8E1-178C-10EB-978C83414B7F012C.pdf

    In the following article, Roger Highfield makes much the same observation as Ernst Mayr and states, ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True – Roger Highfield – January 2014
    Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
    ,,, Whatever the case, those universal truths—’laws’—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
    Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.
    http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25468

    Professor Murray Eden of MIT, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory” stated that “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
    https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~christos/evol/compevol_files/Wistar-Eden-1.pdf

    In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.

  89. 89
    bornagain77 says:

    And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such a disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.

    Conservation of information, evolution, etc – Sept. 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution:
    “The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].”
    Gödel – As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995).
    Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,,
    More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms.,,,
    http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.u.....ution-etc/

    Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence – June 17, 2015
    Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search — unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with “natural evolution.” ,,,
    Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab’s website states, “The principal theme of the lab’s research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems.” So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,,
    What Marks and Dembski (mathematically) prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can’t prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can’t derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....96931.html

    And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.

    The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness – David L. Abel
    Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”
    If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published, the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.
    The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:
    “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
    https://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness

    Of supplemental note: although Darwinists have refused to accept falsification for their theory from mathematics and empirical evidence, and even though, as was shown, Darwinian evolution, since there is no ‘law of evolution’ within the universe, can have no rigid mathematical basis to test against, Darwinian evolution, regardless of that monumental failing, has, none-the-less, been thoroughly falsified by both mathematics and experimentation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/early-complexity-a-case-study-of-evolutionary-theory/#comment-650322

    Also of related interest:

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://youtu.be/L7f_fyoPybw

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video
    https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ

  90. 90
    tribune7 says:

    Bob

    At best that gets you to say that something might be designed, but things that are not designed might also have the same characteristics.

    That designed objects have a distinct, quantifiable characteristic is something that should be held as axiomatic by lovers of science and reason. This means that if an object has this characteristic it should be recognized as designed whether the designer is known or not.

    Whether X is that characteristic of course may be disputed and attempts may be made to falsify it.

  91. 91
    Molson Bleu says:

    DELETED

    MB, you are warned. There will not be a second warning.

  92. 92
    Molson Bleu says:

    Tribune7@90. Very good point.

  93. 93
    bornagain77 says:

    Molson, I explained my position and find it very apt since he has repeatedly ‘bobbed and weaved’ in his argumentation.

    I am very well aware of what the ‘moral’ limits are on UD having seen numerous people banned for overly rude behavior over the past 10 years.

    You, on the other hand think you can pull moral judgement on me. (as well as others on UD) To which I refer you to the sink in your bathroom where you can go soak your pompous head.

    Feel free to fulfill your promise and scroll past my posts, since my posts seem to upset your delicate sensibilities so much.

    I suggest turning off your radio and TV too since they might hurt your feelings much more than I apparently have done.

  94. 94
    Molson Bleu says:

    Deleted

  95. 95
    bornagain77 says:

    Alright Molson, let’s take our grievance to Mr. Arrington and see what happens. 🙂

    I will forward the discussion to him.

  96. 96
    Molson Bleu says:

    “Alright Molson, let’s take our grievance to Mr. Arrington and see what happens. ????

    I will forward the discussion to him.”

    All I have done is criticized you for using a parody of someone’s name in several of your responses to him. A parody that you think is perfectly acceptable. But the moment I use a well known parody of your name to make a point, you go running to the boss crying foul. Maybe you have the power to have anyone who disagrees with you banned from this site, but that doesn’t say much about this site.

  97. 97
    bornagain77 says:

    Molson, I do not have ‘power’ to ban anyone from this site. What I do know is that I have not been overly rude to Bob.

    What I have done, or tried to do, is to call attention to Bob (and weave’s) disingenuous debating style and then to directly demonstrate his disingenuous debating style for all to see.

    For prime example is post 88 and 89, where I directly exposed his disingenuous debating style, or at least exposed his severely muddled view of how science works for all to see.
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-mclatchie-vs-keith-fox-has-id-stood-the-test-of-time/#comment-652370

    It is not that I want to hurt Bob personally, far from it, it is that I want to expose Bob’s arguments for what they are. i.e. disingenuous, shallow, and dishonest. It is only in so far that Bob is personally attached to his disingenuous debating style that he would feel personally offended,,, which in my view is a very good thing, since that is the exact effect I’m looking to have on Bob!

    My goal and ‘hope’, besides protecting UD readers from Bob’s dishonest argumentation and even from the sheer ‘insanity’ inherent in his atheistic worldview, is that Bob himself will come around from his insane worldview before it is too late (a concern which I also briefly mentioned in post 36).
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-mclatchie-vs-keith-fox-has-id-stood-the-test-of-time/#comment-652270

    All these moral nuances associated with my use of the nickname ‘bob and weave’ have apparently completely escaped you Molson, and you have now taken it upon yourself to try to impose your personal morality on me by using a nickname that was specifically designed to be vulgar and personally offensive in its use, This is a fact that you yourself were shown. Indeed, you yourself readily admitted that the person behind creating the Bat sh**crazy77 nickname, was full of hate and venom:
    http://theidiotsofintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/

    Thus, As I said before, I find your attempted ‘moral policing’ of me (and of others on UD) to be pompous to put it mildly.

    Thus in conclusion, since you have persisted in your ‘moral policing’, I have appealed to Mr. Arrington to adjudicate the matter. And I will stand by his decision.

  98. 98
    Bob O'H says:

    It is not that I want to hurt Bob personally, far from it,

    I’d appreciate it, then, if you don’t resort to childish name calling.

  99. 99
    ET says:

    I’d appreciate it, then, if you don’t resort to childish name calling.

    Then perhaps you shouldn’t resort to childish debating tactics. Things don’t happen in a vacuum, Bob. Cause and effect are at play.

  100. 100
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmmm, appears to be working,,,

    “It is only in so far that Bob is personally attached to his disingenuous debating style that he would feel personally offended,,, which in my view is a very good thing, since that is the exact effect I’m looking to have on Bob!”

    Bob’s offence to my calling attention to his ‘bob and weave’ debating style is yet another opportunity to expose just how insane his worldview actually is.

    In atheistic materialism, agent causality is ruled out of bounds before any scientific investigation has even taken place. Atheists have tried to make this artificial rule the supposed ‘ground rule’ for all of science (see Judge Jones – Dover trial). Under this guise it is called “Methodological Naturalism”. Moreover, under this artificially imposed stricture on science, the entire concept of personhood, free will, and objective morality, some of which Bob himself admits are self evident truths, disappear and become illusions:

    “I don’t think I’m an illusion. I don’t understand consciousness (although I suspect it’s an emergent property of our brains), but I don’t deny it.”
    – “Bob (and weave)”
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/jonathan-mclatchie-vs-keith-fox-has-id-stood-the-test-of-time/#comment-652340

    Yet despite the fact that Bob himself admits it is a self-evident truth that he is not an illusion, and thus basically admits that he is indeed a causal agent with free will, the fact of the matter is that his atheistic Darwinian worldview allows no such compromise.

    Here are a few references to drive this point home:

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism – Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism (MN). If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.,,,
    The whole point of invoking MN (by the National Center for Science Education, for instance, or other anti-ID organizations) is to try to exclude ID, before a debate about the evidence can occur, by indicting ID for inferring non-physical causes.
    That’s why pushing the MN emergency button is so useful to opponents of ID. Violate MN, if MN defines science, and the game is over.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: This is an amazing case of Orwellian doublethink. Minsky says people are “forced to maintain” the conviction of free will, even when their own worldview tells them that “it’s false.”
    When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis
    within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    Moreover, on top of this insanity that Bob is forced to endure from his own ‘chosen’ atheistic worldview, his atheistic worldview also insists that any meaning and morality that Bob may believe to be true, are themselves merely illusions.

    “Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”
    CS Lewis – Mere Christianity

    “What basis do we have for saying that anything is wrong at all if our behaviors are no more than the consequence of past natural selection? And if we desire to be morally better than our ancestors were, are we even free to do so? Or are we programmed to behave in a certain way that we now, for some reason, have come to deplore?”
    — Austin L. Hughes, The New Atlantis, Fall 2012

    “Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
    – J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide

    Thus in conclusion of the insanity inherent in Bob’s atheism, the illusion called “Bob (and weave) O’Hara” is only having an illusion of being ‘irked’ by some illusion of objective morality being trespassed.

    My obvious question is this, why in blue blazes should I give two hoots about offending the illusory morality of a non-existent illusion named “Bob”?

  101. 101
    Bob O'H says:

    Oh please, ba77, don’t mis-represent my views:

    Yet despite the fact that Bob himself admits it is a self-evident truth that he is not an illusion, and thus basically admits that he is indeed a causal agent with free will, the fact of the matter is that his atheistic Darwinian worldview allows no such compromise.

    1. No, I wouldn’t say that it is a self-evident truth that I am not an illusion: I’m not sure what would count as a ‘self-evident truth’ (as opposed to some knowledge that has been instilled in us from an early age)
    2. I never mentioned free will: it’s one of those subjects that I steer clear of because discussion usually brings more heat than light
    3. My own world view does allow for the possibility of free will, but ultimately I don’t know if we have it or not (I think we would have to understand much more about the universe and consciousness before any conclusions could be reached).

    If you’re going to call my world view insane, it might help if you actually knew what my world view is. I don’t expect you to agree with it (and it’s OK with me if you don’t), but I would appreciate it if you didn’t mis-represent it.

    My obvious question is, why should I give two hoots about offending a non-existent illusion named “Bob”?

    Really? you think I’m a non-existent illusion? FWIW, I don’t think I’m an illusion, and I don’t thin you are either.

  102. 102
    bornagain77 says:

    Ha Ha Ha,,, exhibit number one for Bob (and weave) O’Hara’s debating style, his entire response at 101.

  103. 103

    MB @ 96: “… that doesn’t say much about this site.”

    BA77 didn’t say or imply that he had any power to remove you. He only said that he would take the discussion thread to one of the site administrators and let the administrator decide. Do you understand the difference?

    Also, the fact that you (and other a/mats) are allowed to continually make worn-out and predictable objections (usually with a sneer) shows that the administrators of this site are compassionate, kind, and exceedingly lenient.

  104. 104
    Molson Bleu says:

    “BA77 didn’t say or imply that he had any power to remove you. He only said that he would take the discussion thread to one of the site administrators and let the administrator decide. Do you understand the difference?”

    Yes I do. I just thought it rather strange that he would feel it necessary to run to the administrator rather than address the issue himself. But no matter.

    “Also, the fact that you (and other a/mats) are allowed to continually make worn-out and predictable objections (usually with a sneer) shows that the administrators of this site are compassionate, kind, and exceedingly lenient.”

    I’m not an a/mat. I am a practicing Catholic.

  105. 105
    asauber says:

    Molson Bleu,

    Armand Jacks, is that you?

    Andrew

  106. 106
    Molson Bleu says:

    “Armand Jacks, is that you?”

    Who’s Armand Jacks?

  107. 107
    Bob O'H says:

    I’m not an a/mat. I am a practicing Catholic.

    How long before you feel you can start performing? 🙂

  108. 108
    Molson Bleu says:

    “How long before you feel you can start performing? ????”

    That one never gets old. 🙂

    I always say practicing because I am not always very good at it. As demonstrated by my decision long ago to avail myself of birth control. But I do try to follow most of the other teachings. I wish I could say that I am always successful, but that would be a lie.

  109. 109
    asauber says:

    Who’s Armand Jacks?

    He’s a sockpuppet who trolls here under different names.

    His style is similar to yours.

    Andrew

  110. 110
    Molson Bleu says:

    “He’s a sockpuppet who trolls here under different names.

    His style is similar to yours.”

    Then he must be an intelligent likeable chap. 🙂

Leave a Reply