New Video Presentation on YouTube: Intelligent Design & Scientific Conservatism

_{Joshua Gidney

September 9, 2021

Biology, Convergent evolution, Darwinism, Design inference, Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Food for thought, ID Foundations, Information, Intelligent Design, Natural selection, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science, specified complexity, Video}

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

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:

A Good Way to Attack Intelligent Design?

Comments

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. -QQuerius_{September 16, 2021
September
09
Sep
16
16
2021
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

JVL offered this command:
Go on then.
I replied twice with a detailed model - and nothing since then. I'm hoping he is re-thinking his ID skepticism.Silver Asiatic_{September 16, 2021
September
09
Sep
16
16
2021
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

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. -QQuerius_{September 14, 2021
September
09
Sep
14
14
2021
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

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. -QQuerius_{September 12, 2021
September
09
Sep
12
12
2021
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

CD
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…..
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.Silver Asiatic_{September 12, 2021
September
09
Sep
12
12
2021
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Q @ 44 LOL - or it could be German for personality crisis brought on by trying to socially engineer multiple identities. :)Silver Asiatic_{September 12, 2021
September
09
Sep
12
12
2021
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

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.ET_{September 12, 2021
September
09
Sep
12
12
2021
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

#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.....chuckdarwin_{September 12, 2021
September
09
Sep
12
12
2021
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

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.) -QQuerius_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

chuckdarwin:
Actually, researchers are pretty clear that Stonehenge was constructed using conventional Neolithic techniques common to moving and erecting megaliths.
Actually that is just their best guess and it is too vague to be of any use.ET_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

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.
First, the [granite] bluestones come from the Preseli Mountains in South Wales, nearly 250 miles away. There were about 80 of them, weighing up to 4 tons each. How they were transported is not known . . .
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. -QQuerius_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

JVL
Very amusing. Perhaps you’d like to explain your methodology?
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.Silver Asiatic_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

#37 & 38 Actually, researchers are pretty clear that Stonehenge was constructed using conventional Neolithic techniques common to moving and erecting megaliths.chuckdarwin_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

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.ET_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

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) -QQuerius_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Design requires a designer. And equipment. And energy. And raw materials. Have you found those?
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.
That is not how archaeological investigations work.
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 insist you know things you don’t?
Why do you? Why can't you form a coherent argument instead of spewing your cowardly false accusations?ET_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

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!bornagain77_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

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.
:))) Yep, a limited number of variations as an intelligent (nonrandom) and fast response of organism to environmental stimuli. Like the programs of washing machine.
JVL Design requires a designer. And equipment. And energy. And raw materials. Have you found those?
:) 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. :)Lieutenant Commander Data_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

that cat is now explicitly out of the bag
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, that it is a presumption, not an explanation.
ID is a conclusion given the evidence. So is every conclusion of every study in science.jerry_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Jerry
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.
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.Silver Asiatic_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Ok. Done. Very amusing. Perhaps you'd like to explain your methodology?JVL_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

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_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

JVL
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.
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_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

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_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

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.JVL_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

chuckdarwin:
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, etc. “Research” within a paradigm is always overly susceptible to confirmation bias.
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.ET_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

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.ET_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

#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......chuckdarwin_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

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.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in certain cases. So in a sense, 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.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
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”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality - George Musser - Aug. 17, 2020 Excerpt: Now, researchers in Australia and Taiwan offer perhaps the sharpest demonstration that Wigner’s paradox is real. In a study published this week in Nature Physics, they transform the thought experiment into a mathematical theorem that confirms the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the scenario. The team also tests the theorem with an experiment, using photons as proxies for the humans. Whereas Wigner believed resolving the paradox requires quantum mechanics to break down for large systems such as human observers, some of the new study’s authors believe something just as fundamental is on thin ice: objectivity. It could mean there is no such thing as an absolute fact, one that is as true for me as it is for you. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality
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:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
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.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of approx. 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
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”.
Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8--eE
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:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{September 11, 2021
September
09
Sep
11
11
2021
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

A Good Way to Attack Intelligent Design?

Leave a Reply