I have recently posted a new video on my Intelligent Design YouTube channel. In this video I discuss several areas in the philosophy of science and modern evolutionary biology, and their relationship to ID. These thoughts were prompted initially by an interesting paper by philosopher of science Jeffrey Koperski ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design, and Two Good Ones’. Koperski thinks that one good way to critique ID is to point out that it violates principles like ‘scientific conservatism’. Because there are several potential naturalistic mechanisms on the table, even if orthodox neo-Darwinism fails, ID is an unnecessary proposal. To turn to design explanations would be to adjust our theories too drastically. I argue against this claim, concluding that in fact ID may be the most adequate and conservative theory we have, and therefore should be incorporated into our scientific framework. Follow the link below:
52 Replies to “New Video Presentation on YouTube: Intelligent Design & Scientific Conservatism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for posting the video. A couple of comments . . .
– The Russian pronunciation of Koperski is close to “copy ‘air ski” or “cope ‘pierre ski.” Of course, how Jeffrey Koperski prefers to pronounce his name may be different.
– You mention Occam’s Razor in relation to “scientific conservatism.” I’ve also heard the term, parsimony, to express the same concept. Can one assume these terms are interchangeable?
– I’ve promoted the idea here that Intelligent Design is not really a theory as much as a paradigm that pragmatically leads to faster scientific progress than random chance and natural selection. Counterexamples include spontaneous generation, “vestigial” organs, and “junk” DNA. In each of these cases, a presumption of design would have resulted in faster progress than a presumption of randomness or obsolescence. This is analogous to assigning mathematical models to phenomena in physics, again often on a pragmatic basis.
– The is indeed a problem of functional information as pointed by many people, including most recently Stephen Meyer. I once commented here about the likelihood of three stones stacked up as most likely the result of human intervention, whereupon someone corrected me that a study showed that two stones was sufficient. In cryptography, a continuous stream of data is typically transmitted that then changes into an encrypted message in a form that tries to be as close as possible to random noise. How can functional information as captured in design be quantified?
Note that functional information is not the same as “Shannon information,” which in my opinion is more appropriately associated with the limits of data compression.
– Naturalistic causes can ultimately all be traced back to the question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” There’s no naturalistic answer to this question.
-Q
‘Scientific conservatism’ sounds very much like a fancy way of re-stating the ‘Methodological Naturalism’ fallacy. and/or the “God of the Gaps’ fallacy, of atheists.
With the “Methodological Naturalism’ fallacy we find atheists trying to, prior to any investigation of evidence, force science into providing only naturalistic explanations, “no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”
One glaring problem for atheists with their prior presumption of methodological naturalism is that the scientific method itself cannot be reduced to a purely naturalistic/materialistic explanation.
The scientific method is a logical method, (i.e. inductive logic), of investigating the world and is therefore, by its very nature, an immaterial, even ‘non-natural’, method of investigating the world.
Yet, if you can’t reduce the scientific method itself to naturalistic explanations then, of course, it is completely absurd to then try to force science into providing only naturalistic explanations. i.e. ‘Methodological Naturalism’.
Moreover, the way ‘Methodological Naturalism was first formulated and sold to the public was disingenuous in its construct.
Paul de Vries, when he first coined the term ‘Methodological Naturalism’, stated “I let go of my pencil and it immediately falls to the floor. Why? It would not be scientifically enlightening to say, “God made it that way.” Similarly, scientists would not explain a particular rainstorm in terms of an Indian’s rain dance or a farmer’s prayers. Rainstorms are explained in terms of natural factors, such as air pressure and temperature — factors that themselves depend on other natural factors.”
Please note how Paul assumes naturalism, via “other natural factors’, as the base cause for Rainstorms in the first place.
To repeat, he claimed “Rainstorms are explained in terms of natural factors, such as air pressure and temperature — factors that themselves depend on other natural factors.”
Yet, Michael Denton would wholeheartedly disagree that the ‘other factors’ that cause rainstorms are naturalistic in their origin.
In other words, the fine tuning of the conditions on earth that allow rainstorms to even be possible in the first place are far too neat and tidy to be merely attributed to ‘other natural factors’ as Paul de Vries ‘handwavingly’ did when he, unwittingly or not, assumed naturalism as the ultimate cause of Rainstorms.
To give us an idea on just how special ‘rainstorms’ actually are on planet earth, “On Venus, it rains sulfuric acid. On Mars it snows dry ice, which is carbon dioxide in a solid state. Saturn’s moon Titan rains methane, and on Jupiter, it rains helium and mushy ammonia hailstones. On Neptune, scientists suspect it rains pure carbon in the form of diamonds.”
Thus I hold that Paul de Vries, unwittingly or not, was being very disingenuous when he stated that “Rainstorms are explained in terms of natural factors, such as air pressure and temperature — factors that themselves depend on other natural factors.”
And the fine tuning of planetary conditions that allow rainstorms to even be possible on earth in the first place, is way before we even get to the many overlapping, life-enabling, properties of water(H2O) that enable life to even be possible.
On and on through each characteristic we can possibly measure water with, it turns out to be required to be exactly, or almost exactly, as it is for complex life on this earth to be possible. No other liquid in the universe comes anywhere near matching water in its fitness for life (Denton: Nature’s Destiny).
Paul de Vries’s allusion to ‘other natural factors’ for causing rainstorms, when he first formulated the term ‘methodological naturalism’, rings very hallow in the face of such extreme fine-tuning for water.
Paul de Vries simply had no right to assume ‘other natural factors’ for rainstorms when he first formulated the term ‘methodological naturalism’.
Likewise, the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy of atheists also suffers from the same exact fundamental flaw of assuming that science has explained, or will someday explain, everything in a completely naturalistic fashion. Yet, I hold that science has explained nothing in a completely naturalistic fashion. Shoot, the creation of the entire universe in the Big Bang, by itself, proves that point.
Moreover, the origin of the fallacious ‘God of the Gaps’ argument goes back to atheist Friedrich Nietzsche and to theistic evolutionist Henry Drummond.
Specifically, Nietzsche stated, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”
Nietzsche’s claim, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”, was a very interesting claim for Nietzsche, a dogmatic atheist, to make.
The reason why it is interesting is because if God is not real, but is merely an illusion as atheists hold, then everything else becomes a illusion for the atheist.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
So, since everything that normal everyday people regard as being real becomes an illusion under Darwinian materialism and/or methodological naturalism, the Christian Theist has every right to ask “what exactly is regarded as being undeniably real for the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist?”
Well, for one thing, as one of their main and primary presuppositions, the Darwinian materialist and/or naturalist, as the name ‘materialist’ directly implies, holds that material particles are ‘real’ and that everything else “is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.”
And although, as a primary presupposition, the Darwinian materialist/naturalist holds that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which everything else must be based, and although the Darwinian atheist holds that Christian Theists are being ‘unscientific’ in their rejection of his supposedly ‘scientific’ presupposition of materialism/naturalism, the fact of the matter is that science itself has now falsified the Darwinian naturalist’s belief that material particles are ‘real’.
As the following delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,
“The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”
As well, Leggett’s inequality has now also falsified ‘realism’, (which is the belief that a physical reality exists independently of our conscious observation of it)
Thus, although the Darwinian materialist may hold that the Christian Theist is not being ‘scientific’ in his rejection of the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic worldview, the fact of the matter is that empirical science itself has now crushed the Darwinian materialist’s belief that material particles are the ultimate reality upon which all other ‘scientific’ explanations must ultimately be based.
So thus in conclusion, although atheists, with their ‘God of the gaps’ argument. hold that, “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God”, the fact of the matter is that, without God, the atheistic materialist is forced to hold that everything that normal everyday people regard as being undeniably real, (I.e. personhood, free will, beauty, morality, etc.. etc…), is a delusion.
In short, it is the materialist/naturalist himself that is guilty of the very thing they accused Christians of, i.e. “into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called “materialism/naturalism”
Yet to repeat, science itself has now falsified the Darwinian materialist’s primary belief that material particles are ‘real’.
In short, it is not belief in God that is a delusion, but it is the Darwinist’s belief that material particles are ‘real’ that is now scientifically shown to be a delusion.
One mistake made by the author immediately it to position ID as a theory. It’s a set of conclusions from the data. Like any proposed naturalistic theory, ID uses only material results and naturalistic processes to come to a set of conclusions. So it’s not much of a departure. In that way, it is very conservative.
He then discusses philosophy of science conclusions by objectors that all make the begging the question fallacy. Hardly good philosophy for so called philosophers. Also the whole conservative objection is not logical but a made up distraction by those arbitrarily eliminating something something logical.
He then goes on to develop an elaborate Venn diagram design which essentially is Darwinism without understanding that is what it is. The so called challenges to Darwinism are just additional sources of variation. This is also the DNA/protein producing model which is inadequate.
At the end he seems to be approaching the necessary understanding of the form of ID he is recommending. That the design steps were implemented after the creation of the universe. That is the real issue being dodged here.
It is worth noting that, although Darwinists often decry ID for violating the supposedly sacrosanct rule of ‘Methodological Naturalism’, Darwinists themselves often do not follow Methodological Naturalism in their arguments, but their arguments are often implicitly Theological in their construct.
Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty theological presuppositions, instead of on any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
Objections to ID
By theists – why? ID implies the omniscient God got it wrong and had to interfere in the creation. Their God would have gotten it right from the start. One major contradiction, they pray to their God to interfere in the lives of the world. Many of them believe in miracles, another contradiction.
By atheists/agnostics – why? ID, if correct, destroys their whole ideology. One major contradiction is that they have to abandon logic and the evidence to trash ID. They cannot acknowledge even the possibility. They must be closed minded to hold their position, something they will claim they are intrinsically against.
In other words both groups of objectors are hypocrites.
Jerry @4,
Regarding ID as a conclusion alone, let me suggest that while life looks very obviously designed, the pragmatic advantage of ID is that, as a paradigm, it presupposes design–in other words, that mysterious structures aren’t random or junk, but have an as-of-yet unknown function.
Jerry @6,
Again, I disagree that “ID implies the omniscient God got it wrong and had to interfere in the creation.” What we see in nature aren’t sub-optimal designs, but that ALL design involves trade-offs and compromises. Ask any engineer. As the environment changes, organisms are programmed to change. Consider the epigenetic programming in Darwin’s finches as an example.
I also disagree that both groups are hypocrites. While it’s easy for anyone to engage in ideological filtering, deliberately distorting, smearing, or ignoring the data is both unethical and unscientific.
While some so-called “Christian” authors are out to make a quick buck, there are also numerous examples in Darwinism of disfiguring the truth. For example, consider Mary Schweitzer’s discovery of soft-tissue in dinosaur bones. While initial skepticism was certainly warranted, the fact that no Carbon-14 testing was allowed on the tissue is an example of ideological filtering.
See https://blog.drwile.com/more-reasons-to-doubt-iron-as-a-preservative-for-dinosaur-tissue-2/
-Q
I stand by my comments.
ID is a set of conclusions about a very very small set of observed data. It is not a theory about how, when or who is responsible. Only that at some point in time it is likely that some unknown intelligence intervened using some unknown mechanism for which we have no clue.
By the way Richard Dawkins agrees. It’s the most likely explanation.
The theistic evolutionists ignore the obvious data to propose a set of conclusions without evidence. Their logic is God would not do it that way.
The atheists/agnostics have no evidence to support their claims.
They are both hypocrites to take such positions. I would have respect for them if they just said it was a mystery but neither does. Instead they attack the proponents of the logical position, the one based on evidence.
Dr. T- and the Unruly Student
A course in psychology is a lower division requirement in most colleges. When I took it, a kindly old gentleman taught the course by slowly reading his notes to the class. They were bored to tears. In one lecture, without any supporting explanation or rationale, the professor asserted
“Consciousness is an overt act,” wrote 40 hands automatically in 40 notebooks and then prepared for his next assertion. However, one unruly student shattered the monastic tranquility of the moment. My hand raised up into the air like a sword stabbing into the soft, vulnerable tummy of the Tao. The shocked professor called on me and I asked
The professor seemed to think about it for a moment and then momentously replied
However, this egregious disturbance in the tranquility had the unfortunate result in the distracted professor accidentally lifting his finger from his notes. His unconscious action left him no alternative but to start slowly reading his notes again from the top of that page to the groans of the class and their angry looks darting at me.
But then, I’ve always had a problem with accepting unsupported assertions as anything significant.
-Q
Bornagain77: Likewise, the ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy of atheists also suffers from the same exact fundamental flaw of assuming that science has explained, or will someday explain, everything in a completely naturalistic fashion.
I don’t think most scientists thing that science HAS or even WILL explain everything in a completely naturalistic fashion. I think that what scientists study are those effects and results that can be predictably evoked under a given set of circumstances. That is: those things are are repeatable and observer independent.
There will probably always be events or effects that science will struggle to explain or encompass. But seeing what can be explained or accounted for is fair game surely.
And endorsed by ID.
ID is superior to the science taught in all the universities of the world. It is
Science plus
Jerry,
Sorry, but more unsupported assertions don’t help at all.
– ID doesn’t “endorse” what can be explained or accounted for. Can you give any example of such ID endorsements that you’re citing?
– ID is not “superior” to the science taught in all the universities of the world unless you can support such a grandiose statement. In my opinion, science is generally based on measurement, causality, and logical inference. And grants. (wink)
ID is simply a presumption of design when evaluating poorly understood phenomena rather than assuming they’re junk as in “junk” DNA or “vestigial organs.” It takes no explicit position on the presumed designer or any associated deity according to their founding documents.
-Q
Not to ruffle too many Darwinian feathers, but not only is ID the, (more than), proper conclusion to draw from examining the scientific evidence from both biology and cosmology, (and everything in between), but science simply would not be possible unless implicit Theistic assumptions were held to be true in the first place, (knowingly or not).
As Paul Davies explained, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Paul Davies is in very good company. Albert Einstein himself held that it was a quote-unquote ‘miracle’ that the universe should be comprehensible to us. And he even chastised ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling it a miracle.
Moreover, to repeat what I pointed out at post 2, the scientific method is a logical method, (i.e. inductive logic), of investigating the world and is therefore, by its very nature, an immaterial, even ‘non-natural’, method of investigating the world.
Yet, if you can’t reduce the scientific method itself to naturalistic explanations then, of course, it is completely absurd to then try to force science into providing only naturalistic explanations. i.e. ‘Methodological Naturalism’.
To put it bluntly, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
To put it even more bluntly, Methodological Naturalism is worse than useless as a presupposition for science.
To repeat what I wrote at post 3,,,,,, basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
April 2021 – Detailed Defense of each claim
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Absolutely nothing unsupported.
It most certainly does. It would look foolish if it didn’t. For example, ID endorses Darwinian micro evolution. Better known as genetics.
It endorses any findings based on the four basic forces of physics such as solar system, element and planet formation.
Apparently you don’t understand ID. I suggest you read Stephen Meyers’ and Michael Behe’s books. Also Stephen Blume.
JVL:
Thank you for admitting that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes isn’t science.
Jerry @14,
Could you support that assertion?
As for the rest, I’m sorry but it makes no sense at all. For example, Intelligent Design is not in existence to endorse or not endorse the standard model (that includes the four forces). If you disagree, where did they make such an “endorsement”? In other words, cite your source.
Baloney. Yes, I’ve read Meyers’, Behe’s books (not Blume) and many other sources including the conclusions from the founding meeting. This is exactly why I’ve been suggesting that ID is a paradigm that presupposes poorly understood biological structures, functions, etc. have an intelligently designed purpose. Lately, it’s been extended to fine-tuning physical constants in the universe. It does not take any position on the identity of the source of that intelligent design.
-Q
No problem.
ID looks at every physical phenomena in the universe (obviously not possible for all of humanity put together but it looks at a lot.) It then determines if an individual phenomenon is due to necessity or not. I am eliminating chance since I really don’t believe it operates. For a very few it determines that the phenomenon cannot be by necessity but must be designed.
By eliminating phenomena as not due to design it is implicitly endorsing it as due to the four physical forces of nature. Otherwise it would be including it as instances of design.
To do so, ID obviously uses the four physical forces of nature as part of its process and is thus an essential part of the ID process and thus endorsed by ID. ID could not exist without using the standard model.
Sorry for the inconsistency in the use of singulars and plurals. On a bus to Logan for an early morning flight.
Bornagain77: but science simply would not be possible unless implicit Theistic assumptions were held to be true in the first place
Why so? Isn’t part of scientific inquiry the exploration of detected patterns and then trying to see if there’s some observer independent, repeatable cause? It’s much like discovering new mathematical principles and theorems. No deity required.
ET: Thank you for admitting that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes isn’t science.
While no one can go back in time and observe what happened millennia ago we can hypothesise that certain steps might have come about and then test that hypothesis and if repeated tests by different individuals establish the likely-hood of that step having occurred in the past we can add that puzzle piece to the pile.
By the way, your criticism cuts harder against ID: you can’t go back and observe how things happened either but you don’t propose a testable mechanism given the resources and forces known to exist at the time.
At post 10 JVL makes this claim,
Well, first off, JVL should inform the thousands of brilliant minds that have been working, for decades, on finding a solution for the quote-unquote ‘Theory of Everything’ that they don’t really believe that they will ever find an ultimate theory of science that will be, in principle, “capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.”
The number one unsolved mystery in science today, or one might say the search for the ultimate truth in science today, is the quest to solve the mystery of the quote-unquote “Theory of Everything”.
The search for the “Theory of Everything” today takes the form of theoretical physicists, (and mathematicians), trying to mathematically unify gravity, as it is described by General Relativity, with quantum mechanics into a single overarching mathematical framework that would be, in principle, “capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.”
To put it mildly, describing all phenomena in the universe, including why humans do all the ‘strange’ and multifaceted things that they do, is a rather audacious goal for any single mathematical theory of science to ever hope to achieve.
But be that as it may be, JVL’s claim that scientists don’t believe “that science HAS or even WILL explain everything in a completely naturalistic fashion” simply makes no sense.
Why should thousands of brilliant minds in the leading Universities of the world devote a large part of their lives to studying String Theory, M-Theory, etc.., unless they firmly believed that a final ‘Theory of Everything may very well be within their/our grasp?
But anyways, despite JVL’s unbridled hubris in speaking for what ‘most scientists’ believe about what science can and cannot ultimately explain, the plain fact of the matter is that ‘most scientists’ working on String Theory, M-Theory, etc.., obviously must believe that a naturalistic ‘Theory of Everything’ is within our grasp or else they certainly would not be working in a field that they actually believed to be, ultimately, a completely futile endeavor on their part.
Thus, given that fact, this question now comes to the forefront, “why should scientists even believe that there should be just one overarching mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’ in the first place?
Apparently unbeknownst to ‘most scientists’ workin on String Theory, M-Theory, etc.., the very belief that there is some type of unity, an overriding mathematical connection to the laws of physics, i.e. a ‘theory of everything’, is itself a belief that arises from Theistic presuppositions, i.e. from the presupposition of Design in the universe, and that belief certainly does not arise from naturalistic presuppositions.
As Professor Steve Fuller explained,
And as John D. Barrow explained,
To drive this point home that it is a thoroughly Theistic belief that there should be only one unifying form of all things, and that the universe is not “governed by different legislation in different places”, the first major unification in Physics took place when Sir Isaac Newton realized that “the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. ”
It is easy to forget just what a gargantuan step that was for Newton to take.
In fact, I hold that that particular ‘first’ step that Newton took was, fairly obviously, the linchpin step that launched the modern scientific revolution itself.
Moreover, Newton did not take that gargantuan first step in a vacuum, but what enabled him to take that audacious and gargantuan first step was his apriori belief in Christian Theism.
As Paul Davies explains, “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
In short, the Christian founders of modern science firmly held that any mathematics that might describe this universe were, and are, the product, of the Mind of God.
As Edward Fesser notes in the following article, for the Christian scholastic philosophers of the medieval period, (an era that directly preceded to the scientific revolution), the Christian scholastic philosophers held that “Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts,” This belief was in direct contradiction to Greek Philosophy which held that ‘mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind.’
And even in the era of modern physics, (i.e. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), we still find that the top, cutting edge, Physicists still believe that any mathematics that might describe this universe were, and are, the product, of the Mind of God.
No less than Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are both on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe to be a quote-unquote ‘miracle’.
Eugene Wigner, after questioning “Darwin’s process of natural selection” to bring about ‘our reasoning power’ stated that, “it is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here,”,,, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”
Likewise, Albert Eistein himself stated that, “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.”
Einstein even went on to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling it a ‘miracle’,,, He stated, “There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
So, since the belief that any mathematics that might describe this universe were, and are, the product of the Mind of God was crucial for the birth of modern science in the first place, and since that belief still is, (as no less than Einstein and Wigner give witness to), very much a viable belief in the era of modern physics, how is it that modern physics has taken such a gigantic step backwards into Ancient Greek philosophy where it was erroneously held that, as Edward Feser explained, “the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him”?
Well, as should be unsurprising for any ID advocate who is aware of just how negatively Darwinism has affected science and society, it is found that Darwin’s theory played a very large part in setting modern science back to the ‘stone ages’ of Ancient Greek philosophy where it was held that “the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him”.
As the late Steven Weinberg explained, (while lamenting the fact quantum mechanics has thrown a huge monkey wrench into the entire naturalistic scheme of things), “the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.”
Steven Weinberg, who was an atheist himself, also stated, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
That the free will choices of humans “are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” should not be that surprising for us to find out. In order for humans to even formulate mathematical theorems in the first place, it is first necessary for us the make a free will choice as to what axioms we will use in our mathematical theorems. In short, the existence of mathematical theorems presupposes the ability of humans to make free will choices.
As Douglas S. Robertson explained, “Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.”
Yet, free will is a fundamental, even a defining, property of the immaterial mind, (A defining property of the immaterial mind that Darwinists resolutely deny the existence of)
Thus, since the free will of our immaterial minds must necessary preexist our ability to create mathematical theorems in the first place, then it necessarily follows that, “the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.”
Moreover, we don’t have to rely solely on this fairly straightforward logical inference that the Mind of God must “choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them” in order to establish that free will is a fundamental aspect of reality but we can now also, thanks to the seemingly miraculous advance of modern science over the past several decades, appeal directly to empirical evidence itself.
Steven Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
For instance, as leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
And as this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
Moreover, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence”, “freedom of choice”, and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.
First and foremost, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders of modern science),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,,,, rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
It is also very interesting to note that, (unlike the rather abstract and esoteric theories of String Theory, m-theory, etc theories, which are far removed from the day to day experience of humans), this particular ‘correct’ ‘theory of everything’ also has the fairly impressive advantage over these other naturalistic theories of being able to connect with humans, and their personal day to day struggles, on a very real, even intimate, level.
Which, as should be needless to say, is not a minor advantage for any theory to have that hopes to be the correct theory of everything that, in principle, “is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe including human behavior.” (per wikipedia and Weinberg)
Verse:
#7: Querius
“Regarding ID as a conclusion alone, let me suggest that while life looks very obviously designed, the pragmatic advantage of ID is that, as a paradigm, it presupposes design–in other words, that mysterious structures aren’t random or junk, but have an as-of-yet unknown function.”
A paradigm, properly understood, is simply another way of saying world view, e.g. ID as a paradigm presupposes design irrespective of the subject matter or Christianity as a paradigm entails God, the Trinity, the Resurrection, Holy Scripture, etc. “Research” within a paradigm is always overly susceptible to confirmation bias.
On the other hand, a theory is a model which is built from the ground up, i.e. inductively, after lengthy experiment and observation. For example, Darwin developed his theory of natural selection after many years of observing organisms (barnacles, finches, beetles, tortoises, iguanas, you name it) exhibiting variation based on their natural environments. BF Skinner developed the theory of operant conditioning after years of observing response-reinforcement relationships in pigeons and rats (and ultimately humans). Einstein developed his theory of special relativity after years of observing natural effects such as light aberration and doppler effects. In all cases, the directionality was from the data to theory. These guys were not armchair academics. Einstein had to wait 4 years for observational confirmation of general relativity. He didn’t simply plug in design, throw up his hands and say we’re all good.
Thomas Kuhn described this relationship between paradigms and theories in great detail in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions way back in 1962.
You have hit on the key problem with ID, that it is a presumption, not an explanation. And that is understandable given many of ID’s proponents affiliation with Christianity. While you claim that ID is not concerned with identity of the designer per se–“It takes no explicit position on the presumed designer or any associated deity according to their founding documents”–that cat is now explicitly out of the bag with Meyer’s latest tome and ID’s agenda is clear. Ironically, it has always been clear to those ambitious enough to read the Discovery Institute’s 1998 Wedge Document which states as the Discovery Institute’s two governing goals: “To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies AND To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (my emphasis) https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document
Can’t get much more “explicit” than that……
LoL! @ JVL- Design is a mechanism. And your side doesn’t have any way to test its claims whereas ID does.
That said, archaeologists do NOT have to know how an artifact came to be before they can determine it is indeed an artifact. Yours is the mechanistic position and yet there isn’t any naturalistic mechanisms capable of doing what your position claims.
chuckdarwin:
Pure nonsense. ID does not presuppose design. ID presupposes that we can use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to make an informed inference as to how something came to be.
And it still stands that if you and yours, including the propaganda machine that is the NCSE, had the evidence and science to support your asinine claims then ID would have been a non starter. Yet ID still remains the only scientific explanation for our existence.
Bornagain77: JVL should inform the thousands of brilliant minds that have been working, for decades, on finding a solution for the quote-unquote ‘Theory of Everything’ that they don’t really believe that they will ever find an ultimate theory of science that will be, in principle, “capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.”
I don’t think I have to inform them of that, I think they know.
To put it mildly, describing all phenomena in the universe, including why humans do all the ‘strange’ and multifaceted things that they do, is a rather audacious goal for any single mathematical theory of science to ever hope to achieve.
You seem to be misinterpreting the goal of the physicists.
Why should thousands of brilliant minds in the leading Universities of the world devote a large part of their lives to studying String Theory, M-Theory, etc.., unless they firmly believed that a final ‘Theory of Everything may very well be within their/our grasp?
They are looking for a unified field theory. Which is somewhat sensible and not at all what you are implying.
Apparently unbeknownst to ‘most scientists’ workin on String Theory, M-Theory, etc.., the very belief that there is some type of unity, an overriding mathematical connection to the laws of physics, i.e. a ‘theory of everything’, is itself a belief that arises from Theistic presuppositions, i.e. from the presupposition of Design in the universe, and that belief certainly does not arise from naturalistic presuppositions.
That is just not part of the world view of the physicists working on a unified field theory. Just because physicists are hoping, trying, yearning to unify all the known laws of physics does not imply a theistic interpretation. IF the universe arose because of basic laws of physics then it makes sense to try and figure those laws out. No deity required.
YOU look at the universe and see design but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary to hold that view and still explore how things work. An open mind and a good pattern detection procedure works very nicely.
ET: Design is a mechanism. And your side doesn’t have any way to test its claims whereas ID does.
Design requires a designer. And equipment. And energy. And raw materials. Have you found those?
That said, archaeologists do NOT have to know how an artifact came to be before they can determine it is indeed an artifact. Yours is the mechanistic position and yet there isn’t any naturalistic mechanisms capable of doing what your position claims.
That is not how archaeological investigations work. Why do you insist you know things you don’t?
JVL
We can compare the output of blind, unintelligent materialism against what intelligent design produces. We could try to evolve something by random mutation vs intelligent design and then compare the results.
Silver Asiatic: We can compare the output of blind, unintelligent materialism against what intelligent design produces. We could try to evolve something by random mutation vs intelligent design and then compare the results.
Go on then.
Ok. Done.
1. Take a string of letters:
, . a a a a b b c d e e e e e e f f g g g h i i l m n n n o o o o o o r r r r r s s t t t t t t u u u y y y
2. Simulate blind, unintelligent materialism with a randomizer. We get:
p w s h b n l h e r a z d u h h i k w a r j l g a b o x j u g v i n u o s h s l s s w o o f o q p g w h
3. Using same original string, utilize intelligent design:
If you cant see anything good about yourself, get a better mirror.
Compare results. The intelligent design result offers meaning and therefore function. The blind, unintelligent result offers gibberish.
Silver Asiatic: Ok. Done.
Very amusing. Perhaps you’d like to explain your methodology?
Jerry
On miracles, as you say “many”. But some don’t – so your argument misses those. On prayer – some believe that God would only act within order already pre-ordained and not interfere.
What specific individuals say is irrelevant.
Richard Dawkins said an intelligence is the most likely explanation for life or life forms. Except there is no evidence that any existed.
ID is a conclusion given the evidence. So is every conclusion of every study in science.
:))) Yep, a limited number of variations as an intelligent (nonrandom) and fast response of organism to environmental stimuli. Like the programs of washing machine.
🙂 And a unique kind of information(DNA + other unknown sources) that is in the same time: blueprint, architect, builder, quality control, energy plant, waste removal, repair, check, copy itself . Must be produced randomly ,somewhere, under a rock this kind of information :)))
JVL if materialism is true you have no free will because source of your thoughts are some chemical reactions. Why do you botter then to present your opinions when nobody has free will we are controlled by chemicals and have opinion imposed by our brain chemicals. 🙂
JVL, whatever,,,, seeing as you just denied, via your personal opinion, facts that are in my posts against your claims, (which is part and parcel for Darwinists to do), I’ll let my posts stand on their own merits.
I’ll take the side of facts over an atheist’s personal opinion any day of the week!
JVL:
Energy permeates the universe. Raw materials permeate the universe.
That said, archaeologists do NOT have to know how an artifact came to be before they can determine it is indeed an artifact. Yours is the mechanistic position and yet there isn’t any naturalistic mechanisms capable of doing what your position claims.
Nonsense. That is exactly how they have to work, duh. Archaeologists don’t know how Stonehenge came to be yet they are confident it is an artifact. The list of artifacts they don’t know the how is very long.
Why do you? Why can’t you form a coherent argument instead of spewing your cowardly false accusations?
ET @37,
Stonehenge “musta” been due to natural, differential water erosion and weathering of massive stones deposited and sculpted in a previous ice age.
Since there’s absolutely zero evidence that tools such as cranes or other heavy equipment were used, that the stones predate humans, and that the shapes of the tones are similar to well-known geological patterns found in metamorphic rock, the conjecture of “Intelligent Design” is completely unwarranted when naturalistic processes are vastly more reasonable and scientific.
Also, that the formations are strikingly symmetric is not unexpected given the infinite number of nearly identical worlds in The Multiverse. They simply have the illusion of design. (smile)
-Q
Q- The point is that everything we know about Stonehenge came from first determining it is an artifact. People determined it was an artifact via their knowledge of cause and effect relationships- nature doesn’t make mortise and tenon joints. Intelligent agencies do and for a specific purpose. And everything we know about the structure came from centuries of investigation that started with that first determination.
Stonehenge is something we can duplicate today, in our own way. We cannot duplicate life in a lab. So it is beyond childish to ask that we know that especially given the more important questions that need an answer first. Answers for how to properly maintain and repair it, for example.
And it is even more infantile for people supporting the mechanistic position to ask that of ID given that they don’t have anything beyond lies, bluffs and equivocation. All they have to do to falsify ID is to present the science and evidence that supports their claims.
#37 & 38
Actually, researchers are pretty clear that Stonehenge was constructed using conventional Neolithic techniques common to moving and erecting megaliths.
JVL
You responded too quickly – I added to the post.
1. Take a string of letters:
, . a a a a b b c d e e e e e e f f g g g h i i l m n n n o o o o o o r r r r r s s t t t t t t u u u y y y
2. Simulate blind, unintelligent materialism with a randomizer. We get:
p w s h b n l h e r a z d u h h i k w a r j l g a b o x j u g v i n u o s h s l s s w o o f o q p g w h
3. Using same original string, utilize intelligent design:
If you cant see anything good about yourself, get a better mirror.
Compare results. The intelligent design result offers meaning and therefore function. The blind, unintelligent result offers gibberish.
Chuckdarwin @40 on Stonehenge,
“Conventional” is such a pretentious word for “we’re clueless.”
Researchers can’t prove how it was done, when, and by whom.
Certainly speculation abounds, but that’s not scientific proof. There’s no evidence of the wheel being used or of neolithic boats of some kind. Even claims of 6 fairly-sloshed Scotsmen doing the job are plausible but tenuous, since evidence of empty bottles of Scotch whiskey is clearly absent from the site.
So how do we know that mischievous mammoths weren’t involved instead of insanely bored neolithic farmers? Remember that “Musta,” “Mighta, “Coulda,” and “Mayav” are not scientific words.
And “Chuck Darwin” is a great idea for ridding the world of a racist theory and advancing science.
-Q
chuckdarwin:
Actually that is just their best guess and it is too vague to be of any use.
Silver Asiatic @41,
Great analogy for functional information!
But isn’t “p w s h b n l h e r a z d u h h i k w a r j l g a b o x j u g v i n u o s h s l s s w o o f o q p g w h” the name of a Welsh town? (It’s Saturday night, but OK, I’ll stop.)
-Q
#42: Querius
I suppose you are right. It actually makes more sense that Stonehenge was built by hosts of Seraphim flitting back and forth with megaliths from Wales. Much more sense. Problem solved…..
Earth to chuckdarwin- Nature can produce stones. Stones are the building blocks of Stonehenge. So by the “logic” of the naturalistic OoL, nature produced Stonehenge.
Also humans are not a who.
Q @ 44 LOL – or it could be German for personality crisis brought on by trying to socially engineer multiple identities. 🙂
CD
If that’s the way we should draw inferences from observations, choosing “what makes sense” – it puts a big hurt on your namesake.
Claim: bacteria evolved into human beings.
Response: Doesn’t make sense. Problem solved.
ET @46,
Bingo!!!
Silver Asiatic @47,
Yes, it could be . . . LOL
Chuckdarwin @45,
No. Read ET’s comment @46 (i.e. It “musta” been a natural process).
This is also why we should chuck Darwin’s racist and falsified 19th century theory.
-Q
So my point on Stonehenge isn’t that it was made by aliens. My point is how one presupposes such a discovery had profound consequences for how fast science advances:
A. Stonehenge was caused by natural action over a long period of time.
B. Stonehenge was intelligently designed and built.
When one starts with paradigm A, it will take a long time of researching, theorizing, and experimentation to prove that it was not the result of natural action.
When one starts with paradigm B, we might still not know who designed it, why they created it, when it was created, and how they created it, but we haven’t wasted time on trying to defend it as the product of natural laws.
The same holds true for unknown biological structures such as “junk” DNA or ductless glands (oka “vestigial” organs). It’s far more productive scientifically when one presumes intelligent design for things that obviously look designed. That’s why in archaeology, artifacts of unknown function are infamously categorized as “cult objects.” It would be better to leave them simply as unknown.
In contrast, to conclude something is intelligently designed is a completely different and far more challenging proposition. It might in fact be impossible. One then needs to find the designer, the purpose, and the method.
-Q
JVL offered this command:
I replied twice with a detailed model – and nothing since then.
I’m hoping he is re-thinking his ID skepticism.
Silver Asiatic,
Sadly, when confronted with evidence, papers, or examples, many people simply don’t respond because they’ve left to issue unsupported assertions in the next topic.
Why? Because they’re lashed to their paradigm and are prepared to go down with their 19th-century racist ship for some reason.
-Q