Back to Basics of ID Biology Complex Specified Information Convergent evolution Darwinism Design inference Evolution Evolutionary biology Food for thought ID ID Foundations Information Intelligent Design Natural selection Naturalism Philosophy Science Video

New Video Presentation on YouTube: Intelligent Design & Scientific Conservatism

Spread the love

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?

52 Replies to “New Video Presentation on YouTube: Intelligent Design & Scientific Conservatism

  1. 1
    Querius says:

    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

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    ‘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.”

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
    Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. ”
    – Lewontin

    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.”

    “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.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lutheran-religious-studies-prof-asks-is-methodological-naturalism-racist/#comment-736744

    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.

    The Cold Trap: How It Works – Michael Denton – May 10, 2014
    Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,,
    ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,,
    Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85441.html

    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.”

    Q: Does it rain only on Earth?
    A: It does precipitate on other planets and moons in our solar system.
    On Earth, when particles fall from clouds and reach the surface as precipitation, they do so primarily as rain, snow, freezing rain or sleet.
    On the average, a raindrop is between 0.1 and 5 millimeters. Raindrops on Earth are made of water. Sometimes they can pick up pollen or dust suspended in the atmosphere as the rain falls toward the ground.
    The rain on other planets has very different chemical compositions. 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.
    https://newsadvance.com/weather/ask-the-weather-guys-how-is-rain-different-on-other-planets/article_7d8934b9-6076-54f4-be9b-63557b5158f0.html
    Image: Rains On Different Worlds – info graphic (sulfuric acid rain, glass rain, diamond rain, iron rain, methane rain)
    https://earthlymission.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/rains-on-different-planets-2.jpg

    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).

    Water, Ultimate Giver of Life, Points to Intelligent Design – (Michael Denton 2017) video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2i0g1sL-X4

    Multiple ‘anomalous’ life enabling properties of water
    Excerpt: liquid water is so common-place in our everyday lives, it is often regarded as a ‘typical’ liquid. In reality, water is most atypical as a liquid, behaving as a quite different material at low temperatures to that when it is hot, with a division temperature of about 50 °C. It has often been stated (for example, [127]) that life depends on these anomalous properties of water. The anomalous macroscopic properties of water are derived from its microscopic structuring.
    http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html

    Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an “Engineered World”
    Casey Luskin – December 26, 2010
    Excerpt: “The remarkable properties of water are numerous.”,,,
    The sum of these traits makes water an ideal medium for life. Literally, every property of water is suited for supporting life. It is no wonder why liquid water is the first requirement in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
    All these traits are contained in a simple molecule of only three atoms. One of the most difficult tasks for an engineer is to design for multiple criteria at once. … Satisfying all these criteria in one simple design is an engineering marvel. Also, the design process goes very deep since many characteristics would necessarily be changed if one were to alter fundamental physical properties such as the strong nuclear force or the size of the electron.”,,,,
    The authors then quote Fred Hoyle on the subject, who stated, “I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/pro-intelligent_design_peer_re/

    Water’s quantum weirdness makes life possible – October 2011
    Excerpt: WATER’S life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces.,,,
    They found that the hydrogen-oxygen bonds were slightly longer than the deuterium-oxygen ones, which is what you would expect if quantum uncertainty was affecting water’s structure. “No one has ever really measured that before,” says Benmore.?We are used to the idea that the cosmos’s physical constants are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water’s quantum forces can be added to this “just right” list.
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....sible.html

    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’.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    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”

    God of the gaps – Origins of the term
    From the 1880s, Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part Two, “On Priests”, said “… into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God.”.[3] The concept, although not the exact wording, goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th-century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on The Ascent of Man(1904) . He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science cannot yet explain—”gaps which they will fill up with God”—and urges them to embrace all nature as God’s, as the work of “an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology.”[4][5]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Origins_of_the_term

    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.

    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
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327

    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.”

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    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,”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
    The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “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,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    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)

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    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.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    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.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): ?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.?http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Devil’s Chaplain: Evolution as a “Theological Research Program”
    Michael Flannery – September 10, 2021
    Excerpt: Hunter answers claims of Darwinian orthodoxy. They are as follows: Darwin’s religious views preceded (not followed) his transmutation ideas; Darwin’s theological premises are essential (not peripheral) to his argument; Darwin’s references to theology attach direct significance to the theory itself — he is not practicing reductio theology, employing it merely for its contrastive heuristic effect — the theology and the theory are inextricably intertwined; the epistemic assistance received from theology is central to the theory itself (the “scientific” evidence marshalled on its behalf is pretty thin); and finally, Darwin’s theological claims persisted well into the period of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (1930s and ’40s) and after. Readers should examine the article itself to see how Hunter establishes each point, all supported with extensive references.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/devils-chaplain-evolution-as-a-theological-research-program/

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    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.

    “In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.”
    – Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

  6. 6
    jerry says:

    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.

  7. 7
    Querius says:

    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

  8. 8
    jerry says:

    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.

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    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.

    “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

    Dr. T-, wouldn’t consciousness be more accurately defined as the potential for both overt and covert actions?

    The professor seemed to think about it for a moment and then momentously replied

    Consciousness is an overt act.

    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

  10. 10
    JVL says:

    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.

  11. 11
    jerry says:

    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

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    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

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    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.”

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, 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.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    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.

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “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.
    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.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    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.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  14. 14
    jerry says:

    more unsupported assertions don’t help at all.

    Absolutely nothing unsupported.

    ID doesn’t “endorse” what can be explained or accounted for

    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.

  15. 15
    ET says:

    JVL:

    That is: those things are are repeatable and observer independent.

    Thank you for admitting that evolution by means of blind and mindless processes isn’t science.

  16. 16
    Querius says:

    Jerry @14,

    Absolutely nothing unsupported.

    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.

    Apparently you don’t understand ID. I suggest you read Stephen Meyers’ and Michael Behe’s books. Also Stephen Blume.

    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

  17. 17
    jerry says:

    Could you support that assertion?

    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.

  18. 18
    jerry says:

    Sorry for the inconsistency in the use of singulars and plurals. On a bus to Logan for an early morning flight.

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    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.

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    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.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    At post 10 JVL makes this claim,

    I don’t think most scientists thin(k) 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.

    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.”

    Theory of everything
    A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[3] String theory and M-theory have been proposed as theories of everything. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, together, most closely resemble a TOE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. Quantum mechanics successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces – strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic force – as well as all observed elementary particles.[4]:122
    General relativity and quantum mechanics have been thoroughly proven in their separate fields of relevance. Since the usual domains of applicability of general relativity and quantum mechanics are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used.[5][6]:842–844 However, the two theories are considered incompatible in regions of extremely small scale – the Planck scale – such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve the incompatibility, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of general relativity and quantum mechanics into a seamless whole: the TOE is a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

    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,

    ?“So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,”
    Steve Fuller, Professor of philosophy, discusses intelligent design at Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-others/

    And as John D. Barrow explained,

    “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
    – John D. Barrow – New Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanation – pg. 18

    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. ”

    Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
    Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization 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. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena.
    https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3

    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.”

    “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.”
    – Paul Davies
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    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.’

    KEEP IT SIMPLE – by Edward Feser – April 2020
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    There is also a very different answer, in which the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him. According to this view, 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. They occupy a “third realm” of their own, the realm famously described in Plato’s Theory of Forms. God used this third realm as a blueprint when creating the physical world, but he did not create the realm itself and it exists outside of him. This position is usually called Platonism since it is commonly thought to have been Plato’s own view, as distinct from that of his Neoplatonic followers who relocated mathematical objects and other Forms into the divine mind. (I put to one side for present purposes the question of how historically accurate this standard narrative is.)
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    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.”

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 ?
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,?It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    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. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. ?
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    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.”

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “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.
    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.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    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,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11
    Thus the instrumentalist approach 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. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    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.”

    Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson
    Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. 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.?
    http://cires.colorado.edu/~dou...../info8.pdf?

    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)

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

    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.”

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    Rather, 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. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

  24. 24
    chuckdarwin says:

    #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……

  25. 25
    ET says:

    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.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    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.

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    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.

  28. 28
    JVL says:

    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?

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  30. 30
    JVL says:

    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.

  31. 31
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  32. 32
    JVL says:

    Silver Asiatic: Ok. Done.

    Very amusing. Perhaps you’d like to explain your methodology?

  33. 33
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  34. 34
    jerry says:

    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.

  35. 35
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    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. 🙂

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    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!

  37. 37
    ET says:

    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?

  38. 38
    Querius says:

    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

  39. 39
    ET says:

    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.

  40. 40
    chuckdarwin says:

    #37 & 38

    Actually, researchers are pretty clear that Stonehenge was constructed using conventional Neolithic techniques common to moving and erecting megaliths.

  41. 41
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  42. 42
    Querius says:

    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.

    -Q

  43. 43
    ET says:

    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.

  44. 44
    Querius says:

    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

  45. 45
    chuckdarwin says:

    #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…..

  46. 46
    ET says:

    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.

  47. 47
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Q @ 44 LOL – or it could be German for personality crisis brought on by trying to socially engineer multiple identities. 🙂

  48. 48
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  49. 49
    Querius says:

    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

  50. 50
    Querius says:

    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

  51. 51
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  52. 52
    Querius says:

    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

Leave a Reply