The New Epigenetic Lie: How Easily a Failure Becomes a Friend

_{Cornelius Hunter

March 19, 2016

Epigenetics, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

In graduate school I had an evolution professor who made the absurd claim that he had solved the protein folding problem—one of the most challenging conundrums in molecular biology. And did he have any examples? No, that was left to the student. It was embarrassing. At another time he referenced a proof of evolution. But again, it was a hollow claim. Unfortunately this sort of phony science is what evolution is all about. The latest example is in how evolutionists are handling epigenetics. Read more

Comments

Gary, "....but that’s nothing like the burning people alive and other brutality that your road takes us all back down again." Sadly, Gary, you are right, it is Christians who trample Christ's name underfoot. Jesus healed as many as He could, and even made good the ear of the soldier which Peter had cut off, demonstrating Jesus had superior intelligent understanding of human medical biology. However, He demonstrated He could evolve a new species, instantly, made in the image of God: perfect, twice. The first, at the Incarnation, as God-Man, a new species never before seen. Finally, at the resurrection, when He generated in a quantum leap, a brand new species; the divine human; complete with a dual body, to traverse instantly spirit and matter. With power like that, who needs the agony of blood letting evolutionary theory in order to make us more fitter to kill: first as beasts, such as, crocodiles, whales, and lately monkey types, all in order to be make better humans? Certainly not a good intelligence.mw_{March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

mw:
I am sorry, Gary, if my post sounded offensive. In fact your reply is quite gentle compared to the abuse I have experienced from fellow Catholics on the matter.
Yes I know a Catholic paleontologist who has good reasons to consider your plan to define science as you please in order to turn Catholic children into stone throwing vigilantes to be a danger to society. You might call the opinions from others that question your mental health to be "abuse" but that's nothing like the burning people alive and other brutality that your road takes us all back down again. Like they say: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.GaryGaulin_{March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Hi Gary # 80: "You really should try to understand how historic tragedies begin with bully-pulpit threats against others like yours" You mean the historical tragedy of the God-Man being crucified by the intelligent chiefs of the time? Did He bully anyone into believing, no, He let them pass, and died for everybody. So many believe. There is no intended threat, I simply state truths, believed given by a super intelligence, beyond our understanding. Is it not true, that there are basic unprovable flaws in the main pillars of the theory of evolution? Therefore, if so, true science will expose, and continues to expose such flaws. That is not a threat, that is a fact; bornagain77 does it regularly; and as mentioned at the start. However, that does not say there are not credible persuasions to such science. Still, what will always remain, is choice, because origins will always be shrouded in mystery. I am sorry, Gary, if my post sounded offensive. In fact your reply is quite gentle compared to the abuse I have experienced from fellow Catholics on the matter. Unless all children are allowed to hear the flaws in such consensus science, we will remain in the dark ages of dogmatic theory. The matter must include faith, because, Intelligent Design centres on the observation that a super intelligence could only have created various patterns in life forms and life units. Of course, in this case, I give a personal opinion only, which is the case for all related posts. Still, Gary, I find your stance better than those who sit on the fence. My point to the post. Such witnessed testimony, which includes the Judaeo-Christian God, must be as valid in a higher intelligent beings eye, dealing with divine truth, as any scientific observation. The choice remains ours. However, Gary, no doubt, for my penance, I will allow myself a self bullying head bashing and re read again the hypothesis you have much faith in and support avidly.mw_{March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

mw:
The godless/hijacked, beguiling theory of origins, counterfeits a divine law. The Goliath, can be brought down by the stones of faith gathered from scripture, and educating Catholic children in the weaknesses of such theory.
You honestly should try to understand how historic tragedies begin with bully-pulpit threats against others like yours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqRir6a3VHkGaryGaulin_{March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

rohn:
So you believe science shows that intelligence is the product of the “Behavior of matter”?
This is the operational definition for intelligent behavior. It's from the Theory of Intelligent Design that you don't have time for:
Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.
GaryGaulin_{March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Me_Think # "You are a victim of religious power mongers. You have the choice to stay in Plato’s cave or come out and witness the true splendor of science." The Bible offers answers towards communication with a God, laden with super scientific truth from a super intelligent God, and to converse with Him in the flesh as the God-Man Jesus. The following reflections came through the Good Friday Mass: the Bible gives communicated truthful witness from the Highest, and reliable expert witnesses towards the highest truths of the Faith; equal to any scientific reporting. St John states: “But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. 35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.)” (Jn 19:33-35) St Paul said similar: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to someone untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Cor 15: 3-8) God spoke “clearly” to Moses (Num 12:3-9); divine law, witnessed in written stone by Moses; God created in six days. The only scripture, God ever wrote, therefore of prime importance to faith, and pleasing to God (Heb 11). If Catholics stand by mainly non-provable pillars of consensus theory, then they should be faithful to such materialistic science, which says it is impossible that a God can be encountered in the Eucharist. The godless/hijacked, beguiling theory of origins, counterfeits a divine law. The Goliath, can be brought down by the stones of faith gathered from scripture, and educating Catholic children in the weaknesses of such theory. Me_Think, try starting from a stable cave!mw_{March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Me_Think @ 75, You’re correct, humans have created hundreds of religions and perhaps thousands of gods. However, Absolute Truth does exist, whether we believe it or not is irrelevant to that existence. I’ll see you at the Great Implosion. Your answer, “we made You, therefore You don’t exist”, I don’t believe will fly. You may want to Re_Think that. Good ‘luck’. GG, Thanks for the info. First semi-intelligent question; So you believe science shows that intelligence is the product of the “Behavior of matter"?rohn_{March 26, 2016
March
03
Mar
26
26
2016
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

rohn:
GG; Perhaps I would be best to end the discussion here. When I have questions concerning your Theory of Intelligent Design I will try to engage you at that point. Thanks for the information.
I had to decide whether what was most important to spend my free time writing. That ended up being to Cornelius and to you too from here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-does-machine-learning/#comment-601489 That should for now sum things up, as they relate to the Theory of Intelligent Design and the ID movement. Although not like winning a Nobel Prize the model won a superior coding award: https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/PlanetSourceCodeLabScreen1.JPG I have more information coming on how the model works. And this from the computer model documentation: THEORY OF OPERATION – HOW IT WORKS The Intelligence Design Lab-5 is a cognitive model with behavior that is guided by a navigational network system that maps out an internal representation of its external environment (an internal world model) using a 2D array where signal flow (magnitude and direction) vectors point out the shortest path to where they want to go. This is a vital part of our visual imagination. During human development it is common and expected to cause children to stretch out their arms and say “I can fly!” as they run around while visualizing themselves navigating the sky. Physical properties at each place in the external environment are mapped into a network according to whether they are safely navigable, an unnavigable boundary or border at a barrier, or place attracting it (in this case where the food is). An attracting location in the network provides an always signaling (action potential) signal that propagates outward in all directions and around barrier locations that do not signal at all (the signal stops there just as the critter would by bashing into a barrier). In math these directional activity patterns are shown using a vector map. The ID Lab provides this in the onscreen Navigation Network form that can show the signal direction through each place in the network. It is also possible to show the average Concordant and Discordant pairs ratio, which will be around 60% when the optimum amount of detail is being mapped into network. Too much information leads to navigation errors caused by being overwhelmed as in being “boxed in”. Too little information leads to navigation errors caused by not being able to in their mind “see” the invisible barrier that contains them inside the arena or the shock zone to avoid, as when the program first starts up with the critter unaware of all but a cue card revolving around them and the attracting food. It has accurate information but has no map yet to speak of to work from. Its confidence in motor actions (forward/reverse and left/right) depend on the magnitude and direction it is actually traveling matching the magnitude and direction of the signal flow at the corresponding place it is currently at. Where there is more than one pathway the shortest path dominates, will be the first to propagate to that point and be favored. Where there are two or more paths of equal distance it may become indecisive but will soon favor one path over the others. To test its place avoidance behavior a hidden moving shock zone slowly rotates counterclockwise, while the critter chases food in a clockwise direction heading straight towards the hazard. Although the test is demanding the confidence system of this intelligence strives for perfection, as does a human athlete. The relatively high confidence levels shown in the included line chart indicates that the virtual critter is having fun. In the research paper “Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames” (see notes) that the arena and some of the navigational network is based upon it was found that; some live rats preferred to chase after the treats even though they are not hungry enough to need to eat, while others preferred to remain in the shock free center zone. Even a live animal has to first be willing to accept the challenge. For the virtual critter several If-Then statements that compare actual travel magnitude and direction to that of the internal representation is enough to make it want nothing else but to chase the food around its arena. Intentionally getting out of the way of the approaching invisible shock zone requires the ability to (from past experience) predict future environmental events. This was added by alternating between current angular time (by default room angle is from 0 to 15) and the next angular time frame ahead. The places that will soon become a shock hazard periodically become a place to avoid. This sequential on and off signaling causes a (over time) temporal decision to be made. The same works for swarming bees. Scouts that find a possible new place to build a hive are one at a time allowed to dance out the location for other bees to inspect. This way each option is first considered, before making a final decision. Otherwise all the bees would either swarm to the first site found or to different ones (instead of staying together). http://io9.com/5866215/bee-swarms-behave-just-like-neurons-in-the-human-brain The virtual critter cannot (like a swarm of bees) divide itself then go separate ways, therefore appropriate actions are taken simply by repeatedly presenting (in any sequence) what must be considered. Exactly what it will choose to do at any given time is as hard to predict as it is in real animals. The only way to know for sure is read their mind, which (by adding RAM monitoring code) is possible to do to the ID Lab critter. But it's still not at all like the easy predictable behavior of zombie-like “programmed” actions from an algorithm that uses math to make it go in a given direction in response to an approaching hazard instead of simply showing the options to consider then leaving the decision up to it to figure out, on its own. After avoiding being surrounded by the approaching zone it must have the common sense to go around to behind then wait for the food to be in the clear, while knowing where the food is located even when it's surrounded by places to avoid that can (where signal timing is way off) block its signal activity. Where the signals from attract and avoid locations combine: the wanting to go both towards and away from the food results in it becoming nervously anxious, skittish, as are real animals with such a dilemma. The signal timing that was found to work best closely follows Hebbian Theory. Neighboring cells that fire together, wire together a network with activity patterns that recreate the physical properties of what is in the external environment. It can also be conceptualized as a conservation of energy strategy where at each place in the network an incoming charge is transferred to uncharged neighbors on the opposite side, outgoing direction. The signal energy is moved from place to place, not destroyed then regenerated all over again. To establish a benchmark that assumes error free signals from parts of the brain that use dead reckoning to convert what is seen through the eyes into spatial coordinates in its external environment the program simply uses the already calculated X,Y positions that are used to place things in the virtual environment. In the real world our brain oppositely converts visual signals to these spatial X,Y locations, which a virtual environment has to instead start with. Where this dead reckoning system were added to this model and working perfectly that's what you would get for coordinates. Using the exact coordinates that the program already has provides ideal numbers to work from, which in turn gives this critter an excellent sense of where visible things are located around itself even though in this Lab its eyes cannot visually see them. This navigation system demonstrates how simple it is to organize a network that provides navigational intuition like we have. It helps explain why animals (insects are also animals) seem born with a navigational ability that is there from the start. The origin of this behavior in living animals does not have to be a learned instinct that slowly developed over many millions of years of time by blundering animals passing on slightly less blundering behavioral traits to offspring. It's possible for these neural navigational networks to have existed when multicellular animals first developed, which set off the Cambrian Explosion. The origin of these inherent navigational behaviors may best explained by the activity patterns in these relatively simple cellular networks. The origin of our brain may in part be from subcellular networks that work much the same way in unicellular protozoans (single celled animals) such as paramecia, which have eye spots, antennae and other features once thought to only exist in multicellular animals. Testing such a hypothesis using this computer model requires additional theory, which may have a controversial title but going further into biology this way meets all of the requirements of the premise for an already proposed theory. In a case like this regardless of being controversial science requires developing already existing theory. Therefore see the TheoryOfID.pdf in Notes folder, for a testable operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled. It is predicted to this way be possible to demonstrate a never before programmed intelligent causation event, which is still a further research goal and challenge for all to enjoy.GaryGaulin_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

mw @ 68
No, I believe in creation in six days.
rohn @ 70
Common Sense would actually dictate that He could do it in a nanosecond (if nanoseconds existed at the point of creation). I do believe in a 7 “day” creation. I’m just not settled on the meaning of the word translated in English as “day”.
Well, that would mean the early universe was matter dominant, and the future would be closed universe where the universe will re-collapse and crush everything in it! The truth is, humans created God. There are hundreds of religions with their own God(s) and their own narrative. None of the stories match. You are a victim of religious power mongers. You have the choice to stay in Plato's cave or come out and witness the true splendor of science Edit:Hmm..ok that's seems dramatic :-)Me_Think_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

GG; Perhaps I would be best to end the discussion here. When I have questions concerning your Theory of Intelligent Design I will try to engage you at that point. Thanks for the information.rohn_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

GG; No I didn’t. I scanned the first page of the link you supplied. If I’m not mistaken there are 40 pages to the document. I am ill equipped at the moment (no training) and have limited time to examine them as I’m dealing with spousal health issues. And no I don’t ONLY need “criticism” against it to judge it. I have your “side” of the theory you said you were ‘developing’. This implies unresolved issues. I’m not interested in combing through “strawman” attacks to the theory. If you have received CONSTRUCTIVE criticisms and have answers/refutations then it would speed my process of examination. Perhaps some are included in the linked document. If you don’t wish to supply them, then so be it. It will just take longer for me to ask at least semi-intelligent questions. If your fear is that I will attack you with the criticisms you might supply, I assure you that is not my intention. Generating ‘light’ is my intention, not ‘heat’. Our discussion has been civil to this point. I will not be the one to break from that. I trust you won’t either. If you’ve grow tired of our discussion, then let’s end it now and move on. I said it was a bold request.rohn_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

rohn:
In previous comments I admitted my lack of training in the field(s) which encompass(s) the realm of intelligence. Also, I have not had the time to examine the ID theory you have brought to my attention. If I may be so bold, I am requesting any information regarding constructive criticism of the theory you are developing. Every human endeavor is flawed in some way since our “toolkit” is limited. I have not examined many of the comments in this thread, perhaps there are some that do not involve “burnt strawmen”. I find it helpful to examine ‘light’ in conjunction with ‘darkness’ so to speak.
Are you saying that you have no time to study the Theory of Intelligent Design and only need "criticism" against it to judge from?GaryGaulin_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

GG @ 62; Why can’t the answer be as simple as that? First, allow me to commend you for even attempting to “operationally define, in a testable way” the concept of “intelligence”. In previous comments I admitted my lack of training in the field(s) which encompass(s) the realm of intelligence. Also, I have not had the time to examine the ID theory you have brought to my attention. If I may be so bold, I am requesting any information regarding constructive criticism of the theory you are developing. Every human endeavor is flawed in some way since our “toolkit” is limited. I have not examined many of the comments in this thread, perhaps there are some that do not involve “burnt strawmen”. I find it helpful to examine ‘light’ in conjunction with ‘darkness’ so to speak. With this preface, my answer to your second question @ 62; I don’t believe it is that simple. As I’ve stated in previous comments I believe there is a reality beyond material reality which is integrated with material reality in such a way as to make it difficult to delineate between the two. At this moment (i.e. in human terms), perhaps the simplest “boundary” may be described as brain (material) vs mind (immaterial). I believe science is limited in its ability to define accurately this “boundary”. Perhaps it is not as clear as the goal line on a football field for example. Sometime between the union of human germ cells and the baby’s first breath of air, I believe a “soul” (zoe) is integrated to the material form (I believe closer to the union than the breath). Perhaps a mind or a “mind-seed” is also integrated. At any rate, it is the immaterial portion (mind/soul) which will endure beyond the return of our material forms to the dust of the earth. You will probably ask for the scientific evidence to back up my assertions. At this moment, I have only non-scientific evidence. It is obvious that material brains exist, though we know very little concerning how and why they work. I have admitted that your training and experience give you the advantage on this. It is my contention that human attempts to “create”, even with the correct material “recipe”, a biotic or even robotic “human” will fail. We cannot hope to “create” a soul or a mind to integrate to the material. There are those who seek immortality through preservation of the material body or the mind through technology. I submit that we become immortal at the moment soul, mind (including intelligence), and material elements are integrated.rohn_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Me-Think @ 65; Common Sense would actually dictate that He could do it in a nanosecond (if nanoseconds existed at the point of creation). I do believe in a 7 "day" creation. I'm just not settled on the meaning of the word translated in English as "day". It is the height of human arrogance to think we understand what true perfection in the mind of a Being capable of materializing something as enormous and complex as a universe from literally nothing (not the 'nothing' of Krauss) with a Word. The Christian Scriptures contain a mountain of information such that even our combined finite feeble minds cannot hope to fully understand. But the journey to understanding (and implementation) is awesome! Believing that He exists, with the help of scientific AND non-scientific evidences, is the first required step to salvation. Anyone who believes that the God of the Old Testament delivered the Law to Moses in hopes that human kind could keep them, is missing the point. He delivered them to prove to us we could NOT. Understanding this is the second step. The third involves a Hebrew brutally tortured and murdered for claiming to be The Word.rohn_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Gary # 67: "Me too. And instead of a hypothesis you cannot test I gave you a testable scientific theory for how “intelligent cause” works in biology: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/" Steady Gary, I would not go that far. Many can "see" and have experienced the fruits of their faith.mw_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Me_Think at # 65. “Do you believe in 7 day creation”? No, I believe in creation in six days. Cheers Jesus, who miraculously created six big jars of water into mature wine. So witnesses tell us. Now, would an expert scientific wine taster be able to tell that the wine was only seconds old if the product was immediately tested? No, he would have only the producer's word for it. It is a bad job when you get crucified for creating gallons of best wine. Sour grapes, of course. Still, six jar day’s? In which each separate days had interflow. That is, one miracle, contained in eternal time and eternal space. Impossible to scientifically believe of course, because we are measuring with a dinky yard stick. Besides, such an unknown intelligent power in essence, can only be understood by believing. That is the whole point of a super intelligence, from which our intelligence was generated. Only life can produces life; only direct intelligence can generate graded life forms of intelligence in perfection. However, the problem, have I simply stuck my head down a black hole to be scoffed at? Well, the consensus theory surrounding the faith of evolutionism, and I say that with respect, as many of the arguments at first are persuasive and plausible, still has a faith problem in the major pillars of common descent from cosmic dust. The cosmos and life systems are distributed and are operated with meticulous ordered laws which regulate every life form and every heavenly body. Do we live in a mature cosmos, unimaginably created in six days, by a super intelligent power, for our immediate benefit, which of a necessity, means miracles affect dating methods. Or, do we live the more seemingly impossible scenario, for some unknown reason, everything came from a perfectly balanced Godless point containing all matter, infinitely as hot as hell, situated in no space, which for no explainable reason exploded, and for no explainable reason expanded, and which cannot be explained by what or when such may stop. While on Earth, dust suddenly rose from the dead, and grew like a Darwin Tree, from which every branch of life appeared by chance, coded itself through brainless intelligence, while our last upgrade was from chance by an unverifiable operative “scientific” selector which first selected us from a monkey in the making, to be a monkey type? And many scoff at super intelligent creation in six days as impossible? Still, some would say, “thanks Jesus for the best six day wine of creation.” Alas, poured down the drain, as if there is no tomorrow.mw_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

mw:
However, I broadly agree with a hypothesis which claims that intelligence operates down to the smallest brainless living particle and non-living particle.
Me too. And instead of a hypothesis you cannot test I gave you a testable scientific theory for how "intelligent cause" works in biology: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/GaryGaulin_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Thanks Gary for your attempts to demolish my reasoning and undermine my faith. Such is life! You say # 61. “But there is no scientific evidence that our Creator is a He, incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai.” However, that depends on what a superior intelligence requires of us? If such intelligence primarily wants us to trust in His word; everything else is in reality, secondary. You say, “Science requires being specific as possible.” That still leaves room for miracles, something you or I cannot address, as we have no understanding of their operations. Yet in your supported hypothesis, considering the Cambrian explosion, (or the remnants of a miraculous drowning, some believe), intelligence has a sudden surge and created the majority of life forms, without ancestors. Surely, that is a belief system. Just because someone tags the word science to origins, such may include counterfeit knowledge unknowingly? You then go on to say: “There is first here the question of how did the Creator speak? Was it metaphorical as in ‘The bad guys got what they deserve'? A loud voice from the sky that people for miles around could hear? From behind a rock? From a semi-transparent plasma type energy that appeared in the form of a human male? Did angels hold him up as in the painting of God creating Adam? Or can this Creator on ‘his’ own fly through the universe without them? Answering all those will help at least narrow down your operational definition for the word ‘Creator.’” My operational definition of the word “Creator” which God gave to Moses, previous to Sinai, and which Jesus said the same, is—“I am”. That is what basically got Him crucified. God at Sinai, amid thunder and lightening, spoke “clearly” to, Moses (Exod 19:16-19), (Num 12:5-10) (at least have a read of an historic event and recorded by a reliable witness). Just because the method of God communicating may be not to our fallen liking: that is, first to one person, who then can choose to believe or not; demonstrates, or conveys to the rest what is important, the minimum of force, full free will: belief in His word alone. That there are counterfeit experiences, only serves to confirm, we are in spiritual warfare: still, a belief, of course. Still, Jesus “flew” into the air witnessed by people willing to die for what they had seen—the impossible. Besides, Jesus “flew”, through the walls or door of a closed room, again witnessed. Proof; the only thing we can prove is the conviction of the reliability of the experience and the word of the witnesses. Now that boils down to simple faith; which is the point of the situation we are in. We can all be “scientific” so called, doubting Thomas’s, that’s easy. All this intelligence, but the answer is mysteriously wrapped in simple faith. How terrible to “man’s” superior intelligence over simians? Still, studying more the hypothesis you support; a novel interpretation of intelligent design, which seems to include an agnostic type of approach in order to cover every possibility, but then; do you not contradict yourself somewhat by your comments in your recent replies. However, first, you defend the following theory of design, http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ From “the theory of intelligent design;” in the preface, you reference the following: “Premise of this theory was proposed by the Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA, USA, http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php” Is that implied consent? Or, do you mean, that what you are advocating is better, as you state: “The result is a more complete model of reality which is not only useful to scientists but also to computer programmers, artists, musicians, clergy, and anyone interested in knowing who and what we are, and where we came from.” Clearly, you have, in the context of Sinai, not given credence or include the God of Sinai, who said humans were generated by super intelligent miracles, and in a day. He must be very “interested”! Science cannot measure God, or God would not be God. Science cannot measure God, or God would not be God. Still, people can find God, by the means He prescribes, starting from historic Sinai. However, I broadly agree with a hypothesis which claims that intelligence operates down to the smallest brainless living particle and non-living particle. It seem that you leave no room for a personal spirit emended in matter by an higher intelligence, which in your case, can only be described as a largely materialist hypothesis of intelligent design, though even in that, you seem to have an escape plan, and sit on an agonistic fence, which is of course your privilege.mw_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

rohn @ 64
With Common Sense. Is it reasonable to believe that the finite can comprehend, let alone explain the Infinite?
Common Sense says infinitly powerful creator can create the universe in days. He doesn't require 13.8 billion years. Do you believe in 7 day creation ?Me_Think_{March 25, 2016
March
03
Mar
25
25
2016
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

GG: How did you test that hypothesis? With Common Sense. Is it reasonable to believe that the finite can comprehend, let alone explain the Infinite? If that were possible, the human justice systems, for example, would not be in the utter disarray (to put it mildly) that it is.rohn_{March 24, 2016
March
03
Mar
24
24
2016
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

GG... Your reliance on scientific proofs falls flat on it's face when confronted with the miracle of the Big Bang (or theory if you choose)....or the creation of life itself....as science has no answer. The cause of the Big Bang is pure speculation...conjecture and faith as science can't describe what caused it. Science fails you here because there is nothing that science can use in it's toolbox. There were no carbon atoms....no radioactive decay... to measure..even time itself did not exist. But here we are today with an accepted scientific theory that the Big Bang happened....Why , and by Who? Well science won't help you there for the reasons discussed above. Intelligent Design picks up where Darwinism fails....it tries to detect design and then attributes it to a natural cause or an intelligent one....it does not purport to assign a cause or try to define why....Trumper_{March 24, 2016
March
03
Mar
24
24
2016
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

rohn:
Science, nor any other human tool (mind, brain, words, etc.) will never fully explain even an iota of the attributes a Creator capable of initiating and maintaining the kinds of phenomena we observe scientifically.
How did you test that hypothesis? The concept of "all knowing" and "intelligence" is what the model and theory of ID that I'm developing is able to operationally define, in a testable way. That's where the scientific evidence (for an "intelligent designer" that can easily design humans) leads. Why can't the answer be as simple as that?GaryGaulin_{March 24, 2016
March
03
Mar
24
24
2016
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

mw:
As for evidence for the Creator, many believe He incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai.
That "evidence" sometimes work in theology. But there is no scientific evidence that our Creator is a He, incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai. Science requires being specific as possible. There is first here the question of how did the Creator speak? Was it metaphorical as in "The bad guys got what they deserve"? A loud voice from the sky that people for miles around could hear? From behind a rock? From a semi-transparent plasma type energy that appeared in the form of a human male? Did angels hold him up as in the painting of God creating Adam? Or can this Creator on "his" own fly through the universe without them? Answering all those will help at least narrow down your operational definition for the word "Creator". mw:
Proof: reliable witness statements!
There are millions of people who will give you a statement that they saw a man levitate on America's Got Talent but that is far from proof that it was divine intervention. Witness statements are often very misleading. The problem only gets worse after a story is retold and retranslated for as long as what ended up in the Bible did. There could have been a Moses and occasional land bridge was theoretically possible at times, and their flight timed to get through just before it starts filling again. That is something open to scientific investigation. And you first need to rule that out before being able to conclude that your best guess is true.GaryGaulin_{March 24, 2016
March
03
Mar
24
24
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

GG; Okay. You said, “Your belief that we were created by a creator that’s beyond science to explain is what adherents to (a controversial philosophy) Methodological Naturalism believe. You have no scientific evidence at all to back that up with; it just leads to more philosophy and religion.” First, I do not believe “…that we were created by a creator that’s beyond science to explain…” I suppose it depends on your definition of the word ‘explain’. Science, nor any other human tool (mind, brain, words, etc.) will never fully explain even an iota of the attributes a Creator capable of initiating and maintaining the kinds of phenomena we observe scientifically. However, science does attest (evidence) to at least some of those attributes (transcendence, ultra-intelligence, ultra-powerful, etc.). If what you say, “I was talking about methodological naturalism, not our Creator” is true, then you are correct. There “is no scientific evidence at all to back” up the claim that the creator is beyond science to explain (at least in part). Just as a swirling detached leaf attests to the existence of air molecules that collide with it, so to science attests to the existence of a very powerful, very intelligent First Cause. We cannot see the wind, but we can feel it. Likewise I “feel” His “presence” with my soul AND my mind. Although non-scientific, it is still evidence. I do not wish to discuss any deeper the theological or philosophical questions around the term ‘Creator’. The danger is that we would need to “operationally define” every word. I have tried to focus on the realm of science and remain simplistic with respect to the attributes of the First Cause for just that reason. It seems we will continue to disagree as to whether non-scientific evidence aligned with scientific evidence attests to a transcendent, eternal, ultra-intelligent, ultra-powerful First Cause. It is a profound shame that the very creatures that are the focused purpose of that First Cause are willing to reject the non-scientific (as well as scientific) ‘bread crumbs’ He has given to us. The scientific creed to “follow the evidence WHEREVER it may lead” is a noble one. There will be ‘chasms’ on that journey. It is our choice how we will cross over them. We should not make the mistake of dismissing non-scientific evidence out-of-hand. There is more to reality than atoms and space.rohn_{March 24, 2016
March
03
Mar
24
24
2016
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Gary # 55. You say: “Genesis does though place that realm on the other side of the solid dome firmament that separates the waters above the earth from the waters below. Not that the dated cosmological model you are indirectly working from will be much help, anymore.” Really! You may have been taking a swipe at Genesis, perhaps somewhat scoffing at a supposed firm dome: the firmament in Genesis? Below is a timely article exploring the matter. Whether you believe or not is not the issue. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/thoughts-raqia-and-possible-explanation-cosmic-microwave-background/ As for evidence for the Creator, many believe He incarnated in the flesh, and spoke to Moses at historic Sinai. Proof: reliable witness statements! Or do they not count, or that God is an unreliable witness Himself? If such words of God are not sufficient, nothing is really sufficient when dealing with origin. Nothing except one to our own liking. The debate started to some degree with a link from bornagain77, clearly establishing, mathematically, common descent is impossible. Your theory, to my understanding, philosophises, that irrespective of such mathematics, life forms will eventually intelligently form themselves? Surely that is still a fundamental belief system?mw_{March 24, 2016
March
03
Mar
24
24
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

rohn:
You say that I have no scientific evidence to back up the claim that a Creator exists, that ”it just leads to more philosophy and religion.”
Carefully reread it. I was talking about methodological naturalism, not our Creator. Whether or not there is evidence for a "Creator" depends on how you operationally define the word. What is your operational definition?GaryGaulin_{March 24, 2016
March
03
Mar
24
24
2016
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

I didn’t know there was another Theory of Intelligent Design. I appreciate you supplying the link. I understand your “hostility” now. I admitted at the outset that I have little training in any scientific field let alone cognitive science. However, I will endeavor to unpack your theory though it may take some time. If your last comment is a jab at what you perceive to be my ‘religious’ beliefs then I would suggest that you do not know what my beliefs are regarding Genesis nor what “cosmological model” I hold to. All you really know is that I believe in a transcendent eternal first cause. I freely admit that I am a Christian. If you ask 100 people for their definition of Christian, you will get 100 different answers. I would also assert that not all who claim to be Christian are truly followers of the historical Jesus Christ, indeed perhaps the majority are not. That is for someone else, with more intelligence than the whole of humanity combined could muster, to judge. The divisions within Christianity pale in comparison to the chasm that divides true believers in Christ's nature and accomplishments, from non-believers. You say that I have no scientific evidence to back up the claim that a Creator exists, that ”it just leads to more philosophy and religion.” Show me scientific evidence that a transcendent eternal First Cause doesn’t exist. I submit that the mere existence of the universe and its unfathomable complexity and specificity for life on Earth is scientific evidence. If you have a better explanation (scientific or otherwise) let’s hear it. I believe you are correct to say that the scientific evidence leads to “philosophy and religion”, though I’m not exactly sure what you mean by those terms. Apparently, the “Methodist training” you alluded to in a previous comment did not give you confidence in any “religion.” Scientific evidence seems to indicate that the universe had a beginning. I believe it takes a lot more faith to believe the universe wasn’t created (or appeared from nothing), than to believe it was created…based on the evidence scientific and non-scientific. I did not engage you in this discussion to persuade you to alter your beliefs. I seek only two things when I discuss anything with anybody. First, I seek knowledge (truth) unfettered by bias (a tall order I admit). Second, to test the reasons for the beliefs I hold at the present time. You have not given me any reason to change those beliefs. I have learned much through our discussions, for that I thank you. I give you the last word. By it you may show your true character. For what it is worth, may the Transcendent Eternal First Cause bless you.rohn_{March 23, 2016
March
03
Mar
23
23
2016
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Gary # 55: “Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design does not benefit from worn out analogies and excuses for not having something testable like that.” And, “You have no scientific evidence at all to back that up with, it just leads to more philosophy and religion.” Why do you make God a worn out excuse? Is God testable? Is Jesus testable? Is any theory on origins testable in this life? Is it because of some difficult passage in the Judaeo-Christian scripture? At the Transfiguration, when Jesus, transfigured into light, He spoke to Moses to whom He gave the law, in terms of the Holy Trinity. Witnesses recorded that supernatural experience. Faith is inbuilt into common descent, as no one has ever recorded or observed one life form change into another: fact. No one has ever seen dust produce any life form: fact. An underlying faith sustains evolutionism: fact. Hence, Gary, with all the best will in the world, your theory must also be seeded with faith; your belief, minus the firmament of course. As for “scientific evidence” there is a cart load of equally valid evidence given by reliable witnesses, and the very written personal testimony of God written in stone, of which, the first two tablets, Moses smashed. I would say they were more reliable in their recordings and more scrupulous, than many a present day well intended Darwinist. You say Gary, what rohn # 54 says, just leads to more religion, whereas, what you say leads to the opposite!mw_{March 23, 2016
March
03
Mar
23
23
2016
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

rohn:
Since you seem hostile to the Discovery Institute and the Theory of Intelligent Design,
In case you didn't know, the Theory of Intelligent Design that I defend is here: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design does not benefit from worn out analogies and excuses for not having something testable like that. Your belief that we were created by a creator that's beyond science to explain is what adherents to (a controversial philosophy) Methodological Naturalism believe. You have no scientific evidence at all to back that up with, it just leads to more philosophy and religion. Genesis does though place that realm on the other side of the solid dome firmament that separates the waters above the earth from the waters below. Not that the dated cosmological model you are indirectly working from will be much help, anymore. Too many know what is really up there, to make it seem like that one is just another scientist organized hoax.GaryGaulin_{March 23, 2016
March
03
Mar
23
23
2016
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

GG @ 52 You said, “The only evidence I have is that science actually can answer the question as to what/who caused the universe to come into existence. We just don’t know how yet.” We may have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe science can answer the question of who/what the first cause may be. The human mind through the centuries has devised (discovered?) ways to measure and analyze physical phenomena with the senses (& tools). It is a marvelous endeavor. However, I do not believe that the material universe is the complete reality. I don’t want to get into the philosophy of what the word reality means, but I think there is a greater reality which encompasses the material reality. If we limit our search for answers to one area of investigation (science) then our answers will be at best incomplete. At worse we will force evidence to conform to a false assumption (the lack of other possible realities). If we travel the road of scientific discovery (honestly) and “follow the evidence wherever it may lead”, we will surely encounter a chasm at some point. We can choose one of three courses. We can just stop. We can turn around and try to find another road around the chasm (Darwinism, materialism?). Or we can try to find a bridge (non-scientific investigation) which will get us to the other side where we may continue the journey. The Laws of Thermodynamics seem to indicate there will be an end of some sort for the material universe. What will remain and/or be generated at that point? Science cannot answer this question either. As you alluded to in your last comment the road of scientific discovery is peppered with potholes (hoaxes, misinformation etc.) which seek to divert us from honest discovery. I will assert that most people do not know what they believe let alone why they believe it. If we think that our scientific endeavors are not laced with presumptions then we are only fooling ourselves. Since you seem hostile to the Discovery Institute and the Theory of Intelligent Design, I am reluctant to ask your opinion of Demski etal’s theory concerning the detection of information in nature. Perhaps you have posted your opinion in another place. If so, please reference the location. If not, please give a short answer without the technical jargon (if possible). My opinion (for what it’s worth) is that the physical universe consists of not three but four components; time, space, matter/energy, and information. If information can be measured empirically and analyzed against our experience, why wouldn’t this be a useful tool for scientific discovery? Thanks again for engaging this amateur science hack.rohn_{March 23, 2016
March
03
Mar
23
23
2016
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply