Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT: I Believe in Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

After much thought and consideration, I have decided to announce at UD that I believe in evolution.

Living things are not now as they once were, so they must have evolved.

There you have it: I believe in evolution. In fact, I assert that evolution is a fact based on the evidence, and not a hypothesis or “theory.”

I have major proof that evolution is true: I was once a little baby, and now I’m a great big baby! What further proof could be required to support the fact that evolution is true? And my evolution didn’t take even one generation; it took a zero generation. (I tried “zero generations” but that didn’t quite seem to work logically, since zero is obviously not multiple. I need to work out the tricky math here. I’m currently investigating multiverse theory in an attempt to resolve this mathematical conundrum.)

Now that I have come to my senses and accepted evolution as not only being true, but established fact based on evidence, how can I resolve my few remaining doubts? (I’m sure that these doubts are based upon my complete ignorance of the empirically verified research of Darwinian scientists, who have worked out all the details. I’ve searched for such research high and low, and always seem to come up empty-handed. Obviously, I must be searching in the wrong place.)

Here is one of my few remaining doubts about the fact of evolution: After writing this post I’m going to sit down at my Baldwin grand piano and practice Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini.

If I understand evolutionary theory appropriately, this means that I, Rachmaninoff, his music, my piano, the people who designed and built my piano, and every aspect of every living thing was the product of the Darwinian mechanisms of random changes filtered by natural selection, which turned a bacterium into Rachmaninoff in about 10^17 seconds. I’ve done the math, and this seems highly unlikely. Obviously I’m missing something here (silly me!).

Once again, I want to emphasize that I have now converted to the obvious, factual, irrefutable, scientific truth of evolution.

I just have a few remaining doubts about the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism. I’m sure that this deplorable lack of scientific understanding on my part will be cleared up promptly by qualified Darwinian scientists.

I’m astute, well educated, and experienced in a number of computational, scientific, mathematical, and engineering disciplines. I’m thoroughly open to any logically persuasive argumentation concerning my very few and obviously inconsequential doubts concerning my thorough and irrevocable belief in evolution.

Comments
Lizzie:
What methodology would you use to discover any un- or super-natural cause?
Watch "Ghost Hunters" and observe their methodolgy.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
lizabeth Lidle:
Science necessarily involves an a priori commitment to the proposition that natural causes are the reason for everything.
Nonsense- ya see naturl processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science sats it had.
It does not possess the methodolgoy to discover any other kind of cause.
Who are you to make such claim? Do you really think you continued bad ssetrtions mean something?
What methodology would you recommend for investigating an un-natural/supernatural cause?
Clueless- you investigat he event/ object/ phenomena in question and try to determine the cause. And if nature, operating freely couldn't do it then there must have been something else- just as there was in the origin of nature.Joseph
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
"What methodology would you recommend for investigating an un-natural/supernatural cause?" I call it the methodology of the open mind. Science should be open to the possibility of any cause, not simply "natural" causes. Otherwise it isn't exactly science, but narrowly defined ideology.CannuckianYankee
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
further note: The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show - July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, and Eugene Wigner "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries: Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” From a slightly different point of reasoning this following site, through a fairly exhaustive examination of the General Relativity equations themselves, acknowledges the insufficiency of General Relativity to account for the 'completeness' of 4D space-time within the sphere of the CMBR from different points of observation in the universe. The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf The following article speaks of a proof developed by legendary mathematician Kurt Gödel, from a thought experiment, in which Gödel showed General Relativity could not be a complete description of the universe: THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel's personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein's seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, "the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point." This means that "a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel." In fact, "Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements." Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html The fact that photons are shown to travel as uncollapsed quantum information waves in the double slit experiment, and not as collapsed particles, is what gives us a solid reason for proposing this mechanism of the universal quantum wave collapse of photons to each conscious observer. Double-slit experiment Excerpt: In quantum mechanics, the double-slit experiment (often referred to as Young's experiment) demonstrates the inseparability of the wave and particle natures of light and other quantum particles. A coherent light source (e.g., a laser) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through both slits to interfere, creating an interference pattern of bright and dark bands on the screen. However, at the screen, the light is always found to be absorbed as though it were made of discrete particles, called photons.,,, Any modification of the apparatus that can determine (that can let us observe) which slit a photon passes through destroys the interference pattern, illustrating the complementarity principle; that the light can demonstrate both particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Double Slit Experiment – Explained By Prof Anton Zeilinger – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6101627/ This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous': Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm And of course all this leads us back to this question. "What does our conscious observation have to do with anything in collapsing the wave function of the photon in the double slit experiment and in the universe?", and furthermore "What is causing the quantum waves to collapse from their 'higher dimension' in the first place since we humans are definitely not the ones who are causing the photon waves to collapse to their 'uncertain 3D wave/particle' state?" With the refutation of the materialistic 'hidden variable' argument and with the patent absurdity of the materialistic 'Many-Worlds' hypothesis, then I can only think of one sufficient explanation for quantum wave collapse to photon; Psalm 118:27 God is the LORD, who hath shown us light:,,, In the following article, Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what quantum mechanics reveals to us about the 'primary cause' of our 3D reality: Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 Personally I feel the word "illusion" was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; "material reality is a "secondary reality" that is dependent on the primary reality of God's mind" to exist." The following comment from a blogger on UD reflects fairly closely how I, as a Christian, view reality; "I do believe in the physical, concrete universe as real. It isn’t just an illusion. However, being a Christian, I can say, also, that the spiritual realm is even more real than the physical. More real, in this sense, however, isn’t to be taken to mean that the physical is “less” real, but that it is less important. The physical, ultimately, really derives its significance from the spiritual, and not the other way around. I submit to you, though, that the spiritual reality, in some sense, needs the physical reality, just as a baseball game needs a place to be played. The game itself may be more important than the field, but the game still needs the field in order to be played. The players are the most important part of the game, but without bats, balls, and gloves, the players cannot play. Likewise, without a physical, concrete reality, the spiritual has “no place to play”. Love, without a concrete reality, has no place to act out its romance; joy has nothing to jump up and down on, and consciousness has nothing to wake up to." - Brent - UD Blogger As Professor Henry pointed out, it has been known since the discovery of quantum mechanics itself, early last century, that the universe is indeed 'Mental', as is illustrated by this quote from Max Planck. "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944)(Of Note: Max Planck Planck was a devoted Christian from early life to death, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though, paradoxically, not necessarily a personal one) This deep 'Christian connection', of Planck, is not surprising when you realize practically every, if not every, founder of each major branch of modern science also ‘just so happened’ to have some kind of a deep Christian connection.) Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/ What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a cause for objective morality; The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE "Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110227a This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground beliefs within a materialistic worldview; John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXobornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Actually Elizabeth,,, ,,, there are a number of ways to show that positing natural (materialistic) causes for absolute truth claims is absurd. THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle - something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove "mathematically" to be true.” http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/incompleteness/ Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M Nuclear Strength Apologetics – Presuppositional Apologetics – video http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/nuclear-strength-apologetics/nuclear-strength-apologetics John Lennox - Science Is Impossible Without God - Quotes - video remix http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
Well, can you answer my question, ba77? What methodology would you use to discover any un- or super-natural cause? Because if there isn't one, my claim stands :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT
Elizabeth you state this as a 'truth'; 'Science necessarily involves an a priori commitment to the proposition that natural causes are the reason for everything. It does not possess the methodolgoy (sic) to discover any other kind of cause.' Please tell me Elizabeth, since you hold 'science' is the only 'rational' way to truth, the exact scientific methodology you used to deduce this truth that you hold to be true???,,bornagain77
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
Science necessarily involves an a priori commitment to the proposition that natural causes are the reason for everything. It does not possess the methodolgoy to discover any other kind of cause. What methodology would you recommend for investigating an un-natural/supernatural cause?Elizabeth Liddle
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
I hold evolution to be an apriori committment to a proposition that natural causes are the reason for, well, everything. Supporting evidence is moves to the front - those other bits can wait until their material causes are uncovered by...science, real science that is. Unless it's leading you to an ever increasing understanding of the material causes aforementioned, doubt is neither necessary, or an option.arkady967
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
I don't get it. :(Elizabeth Liddle
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
Thanks, Gil. It also means that you, "Rachmaninoff, his music, [your] piano, the people who designed and built [your] piano" all came about and did what they did (including writing music and building a piano), because it provided an important survival advantage. Remarkable.Eric Anderson
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
I hope to God you've decided to become a Christian Darwinist.Mung
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
I tip my hat to you, Mr Dodgen....thanks for the chuckle. ;-) CheersBlue_Savannah
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply