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

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 24, 2018

Design inference, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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)

Comments

"He’s a sockpuppet who trolls here under different names. His style is similar to yours." Then he must be an intelligent likeable chap. :)Molson Bleu_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Who’s Armand Jacks?
He's a sockpuppet who trolls here under different names. His style is similar to yours. Andrewasauber_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

"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.Molson Bleu_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

I’m not an a/mat. I am a practicing Catholic.
How long before you feel you can start performing? :-)Bob O'H_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

"Armand Jacks, is that you?" Who's Armand Jacks?Molson Bleu_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Molson Bleu, Armand Jacks, is that you? Andrewasauber_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

"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.Molson Bleu_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

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.Truth Will Set You Free_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Ha Ha Ha,,, exhibit number one for Bob (and weave) O'Hara's debating style, his entire response at 101.bornagain77_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

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.Bob O'H_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

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.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.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.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_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/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.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"?bornagain77_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

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.Bob O'H_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

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.bornagain77_{February 27, 2018
February
02
Feb
27
27
2018
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

“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.Molson Bleu_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Alright Molson, let's take our grievance to Mr. Arrington and see what happens. :) I will forward the discussion to him.bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

DeletedMolson Bleu_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

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.bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Tribune7@90. Very good point.Molson Bleu_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

DELETED MB, you are warned. There will not be a second warning.Molson Bleu_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

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.tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

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.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-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/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.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
bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

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.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-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.bornagain77_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

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?Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

At best that gets you to say that something might be designed, but things that are not designed might also have the same characteristics.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

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?Upright BiPed_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

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.tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

"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.Molson Bleu_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

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.Bob O'H_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Bob, what are you saying should be the conclusion of the experiment concerning the cameras in the wasteland?tribune7_{February 26, 2018
February
02
Feb
26
26
2018
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply